Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Pilonidal sinus is a chronic, inflammatory condition. Controversy exists regarding the best surgical  management for pilonidal sinus, including the extent of excision and type of closure of the surgical wound.

Objectives: To assess the short- and long-term outcomes and success rate of the trephine procedure for the treatment of pilonidal sinus.

Method: A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted at a single center. Patients who underwent trephine procedure between 2011 and 2015 were included. Data collection included medical records review and a telephone interview to establish long-term follow-up.

Results: A total of 169 patients underwent the trephine technique for the repair of pilonidal sinus. Follow-up included 113 patients, median age 20 years. Initial postoperative period, 35.6% recalled no pain and 58.6% reported a mild to moderate pain. Postoperative complications included local infection (7.5%) and mild bleeding (15.1%). On early postoperative follow-up, 47.1% recalled no impairment in quality of life, and 25%, 21.2 %, and 6.7% had mild, moderate and sever disturbance respectively. The median time to return to work or school was 10 days. At a median follow-up of 29 months (IQR 19–40), recurrence rate was 45.1% (51/113), and 38 (33.9%) of the patients underwent another surgical procedure. Overweight, smoking, and family history were associated with higher recurrence rate.

Conclusion: The trephines technique has a significant long-term recurrence rate. Short-term advantages include low morbidity, enhanced recovery, and minimal to mild postoperative impairment to quality of life. The trephine procedure may be justified as a first treatment of pilonidal disease

Background: The management of aspirin therapy before an invasive procedure poses a frequent clinical dilemma due to uncertainty regarding b[AS1] leeding versus thromboembolic risks associated with continuation or withdrawal of the drug. There is no evidence-based data to refer to.

Objectives: To assess the opinions of internal medicine physicians regarding aspirin therapy prior to an invasive procedure.

Methods: A questionnaire presenting nine hypothetical cases with different combinations of bleeding and thromboembolic risk was given to physicians in an Internal Medicine Division during a personal interview. For each case the participants had to choose between withdrawal of aspirin prior to an invasive procedure, continuation of aspirin, or substitution of low molecular weight heparin for aspirin. Results: Sixty-one physicians participated in the survey. For a patient with low thromboembolic risk, 77% (95% confidence interval 65.3–86.3%), 95% (87.2–98.7%) and 97% (89.6–99.5%) of physicians elected to discontinue aspirin prior to a low, intermediate or high bleeding risk procedure, respectively. For intermediate risk patients, 23% (95% CI[1] 13.7–34.7%), 59% (46.4–70.8%) and 74% (61.7–83.6%) would discontinue aspirin prior to a low, intermediate or high risk procedure, and 5% (95% CI 1.3–12.8%), 23% (13.7–34.7%) and 18% (9.9–29.2%) would substitute LMWH[2] for aspirin. For a patient with high thromboembolic risk, 1.6% (95% CI 0.08–7.8%), 11.5% (5.2–21.4%) and 18% (9.9–29.2%) recommended discontinuing aspirin prior to a low, intermediate or high risk procedure, respectively. In these situations, 18% (95% CI 9.9–29.2%), 53% (40.0–64.7%) and 57% (44.8–69.3%), respectively, would substitute LMWH for aspirin.

Conclusions: The results of the current investigation may help practicing physicians to decide whether to discontinue aspirin therapy prior to invasive procedures. The possible use of LMWH to replace aspirin as suggested here should be further evaluated in a controlled clinical study.