Unroofing and Marsupialization vs. Rhomboid Excision and Limberg Flap in Pilonidal Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to compare clinical outcomes and quality of life in patients undergoing surgery for pilonidal disease with unroofing and marsupialization (UM) or rhomboid excision and Limberg flap (RELP) procedures. METHODS: One hundred forty consecutive patients with pilonidal sinus were randomly assigned to receive either UM or RELP procedures. A specifically designed questionnaire was administered at three months to assess time from the operation until the patient was able to walk, return to daily activities, or sit without pain, time to return to work or school, and time to healing. Postoperative pain was assessed with a visual analog scale and the McGill Pain Questionnaire. Patients' quality of life was evaluated with the Cardiff Wound Impact Schedule (CWIS). Questionnaires were administered by a clinician blinded to treatment. RESULTS: Compared with RELP, patients receiving UM had significantly shorter duration of operation and hospital stay, shorter time periods to walk, return to daily activities, or sit without pain and to return to work or school, and fewer complications. Time to final healing was significantly shorter and quality of life scores on the CWIS were higher in patients receiving RELP than in those receiving UM. Patients with UM had lower levels of pain one week after surgery. CONCLUSION: The unroofing and marsupialization procedure provides more clinical benefits in the treatment of pilonidal disease than rhomboid excision and Limberg flap and should be considered the procedure of choice. However, it may be associated with more inconvenience in wound care and longer healing time than rhomboid excision and Lindberg flap.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".