COMPARISON OF SECONDARY INTENTION HEALING VS PRIMARY INTENTION HEALING FOR THE TREATMENT OF CHRONIC PILONIDAL SINUS

×

Error message

Deprecated function: The each() function is deprecated. This message will be suppressed on further calls in _menu_load_objects() (line 579 of /home/kjmscomp/public_html/includes/menu.inc).

Abstract

pocket in the skin usually located in the intergluteal
cleft.1 Regarding the pathogenesis of pilonidal sinus,
multiple theories have been presented; initially labeling
it as an embryological entity followed by the view that it
is an acquired condition whereby sitting and bending
play the role of predisposing factors.2-4
Many procedures have been described to treat
this condition but so far the procedures involving
the complete excision of the tract have been widely
accepted and are practiced. After complete excision
of the tract, whether to leave the tract open or close it
by primary intention has been the matter of debate.4,5
those who are in favor of secondary intention argue
that the procedure has a lower recurrence rate while
those who advocate primary intention are of the view
that the hospital stay is shortened and the wound heals
quickly.4,5
Here in our study, after a slight modification in
the two techniques by using a tie-over dressing in the
secondary intention healing for 48hours followed by
regular change of dressings, we decided to compare
secondary intention healing vs primary intention healing
for the treatment of chronic pilonidal sinus in terms of
the length of hospital stay and rate of recurrences.

Authors: 
Rashid Aslam2
Rizwan Ahmed3
Zeeshan Saboor
Bushra Rehman
Zahid Aman
Journal Issue: 

PDF