Technical Comparison of Three Surgical Methods: Open, Semi-closure, and Primary Closure in the Treatment of Pilonidal Sinus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objective: Pilonidal sinus of the sacrum is a relatively common chronic infectious disease. Surgical management of pilonidal sinus is a challenging matter, and despite the different surgical techniques, the recurrence rate is still high. Materials and Methods: This double-blind clinical trial study was conducted on 60 patients with pilonidal sinus (2023). These patients underwent surgery randomly and based on the available sampling method in three methods: open, semi-closure, and primary closure. Recovery time and intraoperative bleeding were recorded. The McGill Pain Questionnaire was used to evaluate postoperative pain, and the Southampton scale was employed to assess infection and secretions. Results: The recovery time was longer in the open method than in the closure and semi-closure methods (P=0.001). However, this difference did not exist between the closure and semi-closure methods (P=0.402). There were two cases of recurrence in the closed method, while no recurrence was observed in the open and semi-closure methods. The patients undergoing the closure surgical method experienced less bleeding postoperatively (P=0.002). No significant relationship was found between surgical method and infection (P=0.189). There was no significant difference in the intensity of pain experienced by patients after the operation (P=0.789). Conclusion: For the treatment of pilonidal sinus, primary surgical closure is not recommended due to recurrences, despite the shorter recovery time and less bleeding. The semi-closure surgical method seems to be safer than the open and primary closure methods.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| 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".