Real-world practice and outcomes in pilonidal surgery: Pilonidal Sinus Treatment Studying The Options (PITSTOP) cohort
Steven R. Brown, Daniel Hind, Emily Strong, Mike Bradburn, Farhat V N Din, Ellen Lee, Jonathan N. Lund, Christine Moffatt, J. Morton, Asha Senapati, Helen Jones, Matthew J. Lee, PITSTOP Management Group, Kamran Ali, R Brady, Graham Branagan, S Chaudri, Francesco Di Fabio, Godwin Dennison, David Donnelly, Martyn Evans, Fitzmaurice Gerald, Susana Gonzalez, J. Grainger, Anneli Hardy, Nusrat Husain, Shitij Kapur, Kenneth Keogh, M. Lim, P Mackey, Yasuko Maeda, S Mangam, F. Mazarelo, Kadum Muhammad, Nikhil Pawa, Lyndsay Pearce, J Pitt, R Rajaganeshan, Phil Shackley, R. J. Simmonds, Richard P. Stevenson, Jared Torkington, P G Vaughan-Shaw, Vimalachandran Dale, Jarrad Wilson
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Numerous surgical approaches exist for the treatment of pilonidal disease. Current literature on treatment is of poor quality, limiting the ability to define optimal intervention. The aim of this study was to provide real-world data on current surgical practice and report patient and risk-adjusted outcomes, informing future trial design. METHODS: This UK-wide multicentre prospective cohort study, including patients (aged over 16 years) who had definitive treatment for symptomatic pilonidal disease, was conducted between May 2019 and March 2022. Patient and disease characteristics, and intervention details were analysed. Data on patient-reported outcomes, including pain, complications, treatment failure, wound issues, and quality of life, were gathered at various time points up to 6 months after surgery. Strategies were implemented to adjust for risk influencing different treatment choices and outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 667 participants consenting, 574 (86.1%) were followed up to the study end. Twelve interventions were observed. Broadly, 59.5% underwent major excisional surgery and 40.5% minimally invasive surgery. Complications occurred in 45.1% of the cohort. Those who had minimally invasive procedures had better quality of life and, after risk adjustment, less pain (score on day 1: mean difference 1.58, 95% c.i. 1.14 to 2.01), fewer complications (difference 17.5 (95% c.i. 9.1 to 25.9)%), more rapid return to normal activities (mean difference 25.9 (18.4 to 33.4) days) but a rate of higher treatment failure (difference 9.6 (95% c.i. 17.3 to 1.9)%). At study end, 25% reported an unhealed wound and 10% had not returned to normal activities. CONCLUSION: The burden after surgery for pilonidal disease is high and treatment failure is common. Minimally invasive techniques may improve outcomes at the expense of a 10% higher risk of treatment failure.