Limberg Flap reconstruction for pilonidal sinus

Danilov M.A.; Saakyan G.G.; Leontiev A.V.; Baychorov A.B.; Abdulatipova Z.M.

doi:https://doi.org/10.17116/hirurgia202111134

Danilov M.A.

Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center

ORCID: 0000-0001-9439-9873

Saakyan G.G.

Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center

Leontiev A.V.

Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center

ORCID: 0000-0003-3363-6841

Baychorov A.B.

Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center

ORCID: 0000-0003-0641-0572

Abdulatipova Z.M.

Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center

Limberg Flap reconstruction for pilonidal sinus

Authors:

Danilov M.A., Saakyan G.G., Leontiev A.V., Baychorov A.B., Abdulatipova Z.M.

More about the authors

Journal: Pirogov Russian Journal of Surgery. 2021;(11): 34‑38

DOI: 10.17116/hirurgia202111134

Read: 2273 times

Download PDF (RU)

Contact the author

Table of contents

To cite this article:

Danilov MA, Saakyan GG, Leontiev AV, Baychorov AB, Abdulatipova ZM. Limberg Flap reconstruction for pilonidal sinus. Pirogov Russian Journal of Surgery. 2021;(11):34‑38. (In Russ.)
https://doi.org/10.17116/hirurgia202111134

Подписка 2026 Хирургия. Журнал им. Н.И. Пирогова (Pirogov Russian Journal of Surgery)

Использование инфографики авторами научных работ

Close metadata

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of two surgical techniques in patients with pilonidal sinus.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

There were 117 patients with pilonidal sinus divided into 2 groups depending on surgical approach: main group — Limberg Flap reconstruction (n=62), control group — conventional suturing of sinus (n=55). Patient data were analyzed using SPSS software.

RESULTS

Mean length of hospital-stay in the main group was 8.2 days, in the control group — 5.4 days. Pain syndrome was more significant after 1 postoperative day in the main group. Three days later, severity of pain was similar in both groups. In the main group, sutures were removed after 13 days, in the control group — after 8 days. Incidence of postoperative wound infection was 3.2% in the main group and 14.5% in the control group. Long-term postoperative recurrence occurred in 1 patient of the main group and 6 patients of the control group.

CONCLUSION

Limberg flap reconstruction is followed by fewer postoperative complications and recurrences. However, period of rehabilitation and wound healing is longer compared to traditional technique.

Keywords:

epithelial pilonidal sinus

Limberg Flap reconstruction

recurrent epithelial pilonidal sinus

Authors:

Danilov M.A.

Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center

ORCID: 0000-0001-9439-9873

Saakyan G.G.

Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center

Leontiev A.V.

Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center

ORCID: 0000-0003-3363-6841

Baychorov A.B.

Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center

ORCID: 0000-0003-0641-0572

Abdulatipova Z.M.

Loginov Moscow Clinical Scientific Center

Received:

22.12.2020

Accepted:

08.03.2021

Close metadata

References:

Khubezov DA, Puchkov DK, Serebryansky PV. Surgery for pilonidal disease(review). Koloproctologia. 2018;4(66).(In Russ.).
Pomazkin VI. Modified Limberg plasty in treatment of epithelial coccygeal passage. Pirogov Russian Journal of Surgery. 2015;5:51-55.(In Russ.).
Bronshtein M, Solt I, Arad A, Blumenfeld Z. Pilonidal sinus -The tale of the fetal tail. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2005;119(2):255-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2004.06.034
Popkov OV. Pilonidal sinus. Surgical treatment methods. Voennaya medicina. Minsk. 2017;1(42):101-106.(In Russ.).
Horwood J, Hanratty D, Chandran P, Billings P. Primary closure or rhomboid excision and Limberg flap for the management of primary sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease? A meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials. Colorectal Disease. 2012;14(2):143-151. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2010.02473.x
Shabbir F, Ayyaz M, Farooka MW, Toor AA, Sarwar H, Malik AA. Modified Limberg’s flap versus primary closure for treatment of pilonidal sinus disease: A comparative study. Infection. 2014;2(6.6):8.
Al-Khayat H, Al-Khayat H, Sadeq A, Groof A, Haider HH, Hayati H, et al. Risk factors for wound complication in pilonidal sinus procedures. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 2007;205(3):439-444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.04.034
Khan PS, Hayat H, Hayat G. Limberg flap versus primary closure in the treatment of primary sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease; A randomized clinical trial. Indian Journal of Surgery. 2013;75(3):192-194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-012-0430-y
Dass TA, Zaz M, Rather A, Bari S. Elliptical excision with midline primary closure versus rhomboid excision with limberg flap reconstruction in sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease: A prospective, randomized study. Indian Journal of Surgery. 2012;74(4):305-308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-011-0400-9
Mentes BB, Leventoglu S, Cihan A, Tatlicioglu E, Akin M, Oguz M. Modified Limberg transposition flap for sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus. Surgery Today. 2004;34(5):419-423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-003-2725-x
Akca T, Colak T, Ustunsoy B, Kanik A, Aydin S. Randomized clinical trial comparing primary closure with the Limberg flap in the treatment of primary sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease. British Journal of Surgery. 2005;92(9):1081-1084. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.5074
Cihan A, Mentes B, Tatlicioglu E, Ozmen S, Leventoglu S, Ucan B. Modified Limberg flap reconstruction compares favourably with primary repair for pilonidal sinus surgery. ANZ Journal of Surgery. 2004;74(4):238-242. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-2197.2004.02951.x
Chintapatla S, Safarani N, Kumar S, Haboubi N. Sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus: Historical review, pathological insight and surgical options. Techniques in Coloproctology. 2003;7(1):3-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s101510300001
Abdelraheem O, Khalil M. Comparative study between excision with primary closure versus Limberg flap for treatment of primary sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus. International Surgery Journal. 2017;4(11):3581-3585.