A survey of treatment preferences of UK surgeons in the treatment of pilonidal sinus disease

Abstract

AimPilonidal sinus is a common surgical condition which impacts a young and economically active population. There are limited data to guide treatment in this condition. The aim of this work was to assess current practice.MethodA survey was developed as part of the PITSTOP study. It included questions on volume of practice, treatment preferences and training. The survey was delivered to consultant surgeons with a UK practice through social media, specialty surgical societies and through PITSTOP sites. Descriptive statistics were reported.ResultsOf the 200 people who received a link to the questionnaire, 109 completed it (response rate 54.5%). Respondents treated a median of 15 patients per year, with 20% of these having recurrent disease. Estimates of recurrence were higher than reported in the literature and higher than in a survey 10 years ago. Nearly 50% of surgeons advocate nonsurgical treatment in some patients despite limited evidence. Two thirds practised interventions not favoured by guidelines, including excision and leave open and midline closure techniques. Invasive procedures tended to be favoured when minimally invasive procedures may be appropriate. Surgical training programmes were the key training setting for commonly offered procedures, with few other training opportunities reported. For some procedures, no formal training had been given.ConclusionThis survey highlights issues with quality in pilonidal surgery in the UK, with persistence of potentially outdated techniques, no consistent treatment escalation plan, a suggestion of under‐ or overtreatment of disease and a high perception of failure. This may relate to the current system of training and lack of evidence‐based guidance.

A survey of treatment preferences of UK surgeons in the treatment of pilonidal sinus disease. Lee et al.

“…are innumerable techniques available for pilonidal sinus disease, some even have multiple different names for the same basic procedure with up to eight different acronyms! [1] Inevitably such a situation leads to wide spectrum of practice, and this has been confirmed in Lee et al's recent survey paper as part of the NIHR funded PITSTOP study [2].…”