Outcomes of pediatric pilonidal disease treatment: excision with off-midline flap reconstruction versus endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Pilonidal disease (PD) is marked by chronic inflammation and frequent recurrence which can decrease quality of life. However, debate remains regarding the optimal treatment for PD in the pediatric population. This study compares two recommended treatment approaches-excision with off-midline flap reconstruction (OMF: Bascom cleft lift flap, modified Limberg flap) and minimally invasive endoscopic pilonidal sinus treatment (EPSiT). METHODS: Single-center retrospective evaluation of patients 1-21 years of age with PD who underwent either excision with OMF reconstruction or EPSiT between 10/1/2011 and 10/31/2021. Outcomes included were disease recurrence, reoperation, and wound complication rates. Comparisons were performed using Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: 18 patients underwent excision/OMF reconstruction and 45 patients underwent EPSiT. The excision/OMF reconstruction cohort was predominantly male (44.4% vs 17.8% p = 0.028), with history of prior pilonidal infection (33.3% vs 6.7%; p = 0.006), and longer median operative time (60 min vs 17 min; p < 0.001). The excision/OMF reconstruction cohort had a higher rate of wound complications (22.2% vs 0%; p = 0.001), but lower rates of disease recurrence (5.6% vs 33.3%; p = 0.022) and reoperation (5.6% vs 31.1%; p = 0.031). CONCLUSION: In pediatric patients with PD, excision with OMF reconstruction may decrease recurrence and reoperation rates with increased operative times and wound complication rates, compared to EPSiT.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".