We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Review
Classical Limberg versus classical Karydakis flaps for pilonidal disease- an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
INTRODUCTION: Pilonidal disease (PD) is associated with significant disability culminating in time off work/school. Recurrence rates remain high following conventional surgical interventions. Flap-based techniques are postulated to decrease recurrence. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness of the classical Limberg (LF) and Karydakis (KF) flaps in the treatment of PD.
METHODS: The online databases of Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials as well as Google Scholar were searched for relevant articles from inception until May 2017. All randomized studies that reported direct comparisons of classical LF and KF were included. Two independent reviewers performed data extraction. Random effects models were used to calculate pooled effect size estimates. A sensitivity analysis was also carried out.
RESULTS: Five randomized controlled trials describing 727 patients (367 in LF, 360 in KF) were examined. There was significant heterogeneity among studies. On overall random effects analysis, there was a lower rate of seroma formation associated with LF, and this approached statistical significance (OR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.22 to 1.03, p = 0.06). However, there were no significant differences in recurrence (OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.48 to 2.21, p = 0.939), wound dehiscence (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.09 to 2.85, p = 0.459), wound infection (OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.23 to 1.52, p = 0.278) or haematoma formation (OR = 2.08, 95% CI = 0.82 to 5.30, p = 0.124) between LF and KF. On sensitivity analysis, focusing only on primary and excluding recurrent PD, the results remained similar.
CONCLUSIONS: LF and KF appear comparable in efficacy for primary PD, although LF is associated with less seroma formation.
METHODS: The online databases of Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials as well as Google Scholar were searched for relevant articles from inception until May 2017. All randomized studies that reported direct comparisons of classical LF and KF were included. Two independent reviewers performed data extraction. Random effects models were used to calculate pooled effect size estimates. A sensitivity analysis was also carried out.
RESULTS: Five randomized controlled trials describing 727 patients (367 in LF, 360 in KF) were examined. There was significant heterogeneity among studies. On overall random effects analysis, there was a lower rate of seroma formation associated with LF, and this approached statistical significance (OR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.22 to 1.03, p = 0.06). However, there were no significant differences in recurrence (OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.48 to 2.21, p = 0.939), wound dehiscence (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.09 to 2.85, p = 0.459), wound infection (OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.23 to 1.52, p = 0.278) or haematoma formation (OR = 2.08, 95% CI = 0.82 to 5.30, p = 0.124) between LF and KF. On sensitivity analysis, focusing only on primary and excluding recurrent PD, the results remained similar.
CONCLUSIONS: LF and KF appear comparable in efficacy for primary PD, although LF is associated with less seroma formation.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Executive Summary: State-of-the-Art Review: Unintended Consequences: Risk of Opportunistic Infections Associated with Long-term Glucocorticoid Therapies in Adults.Clinical Infectious Diseases 2024 April 11
Autoimmune Hemolytic Anemias: Classifications, Pathophysiology, Diagnoses and Management.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 13
Clinical practice guidelines on the management of status epilepticus in adults: A systematic review.Epilepsia 2024 April 13
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app