CClinicalTrials.gg
TerminatedNCT03534700PILOPERFOUpdated Jan 3, 2024

Excision and Reconstruction of the Natal Cleft With a Parasacral Perforator Flap Versus Open Excision With Secondary Healing, in the Management of Sacrococcygeal Pilonidal Disease.

An interventional study of parasacral flap reconstruction and open excision in Pilonidal Disease, sponsored by University Hospital, Toulouse. Terminated at 2 sites in France. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 99 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-01-03.

Sponsored by University Hospital, Toulouse · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Why this study was terminated
decision of the PI
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
21
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years to 99 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Chronic sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease is a common acquired condition associated with hirsutism that predominantly affects young male patients. Morbidity from this disease results in pain, embarrassment and loss of normal activities, causing absenteeism from work and school.

Various surgical procedures have been described for the treatment of both primary and recurrent pilonidal disease counting: open excision and healing by secondary intention, marsupialization, excision and primary closure (midline or off-midline), excision and repair by flap.

No single method has been accepted as the "gold standard", and none of them cancels the risk of recurrence.

The optimal therapy for pilonidal sinus disease should be simple, with good aesthetic outcomes and a low recurrence rate. It must allow the return to normal activities quickly.

The parasacral perforator flap seems to answer these entire requirements. No study compares this flap repair with the most common procedure, which is the open excision with secondary healing. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and the security of the reconstruction of the natal cleft with the perforator parasacral flap versus open excision with secondary healing in the treatment of sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus.

Read the detailed description

Many studies seem to attest the superiority of excision and reconstruction of the natal cleft with a flap rather than the open excision with secondary healing. Jamal et al. found a significantly lower recurrence rate with a rhomboid excision and reconstruction with a Limberg flap versus open excision and secondary healing (p=0.005) in a prospective controlled randomized trial including 49 patients. Keshuari et al. obtained the same significant results in their prospective controlled randomized study including 321 patients, with a rate of 1.2% of recurrence in the Karidakis flap repair cluster versus 7.5% in the excision with healing by secondary intention cluster. The time for complete wound healing was also significantly amended .

The reconstruction of the natal cleft with a Karydakis or Limberg flap seemed to be superior in terms of recurrence compared to open excision. But those flaps led to a significant and discernable scar.

The parasacral perforator flap has been described by Garrido et al. in 2002. It appears to be a good alternative, offering all the benefits of the reconstruction of the natal cleft in terms of lower rate of recurrence and lower time for complete wound healing. It also gives a better aesthetic result.

In this trial, patients will be operated under general anesthesia. A Methylene blue injection will identify the limits of the pilonidal sinus. An excision of the whole width of the relevant area will be performed, with depth reaching the presacral fascia. In the A group, a parasacral perforator flap repair of the natal clef will be done, and in the B group healing by secondary intention by dressing will be performed. Patients will be followed in consultation at 15 days, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years.

During these visits, a potential clinical recurrence will be detected, the time to be completely healing will be evaluated, the period of loss of normal activities will be noted, the quality of life will be assessed by a standardized generic measure (EQ-5D-5L) and by a specific score (DLQI), and post-operative complications will be collected.

The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and the security of the reconstruction of the natal cleft with the perforator parasacral flap versus open excision with secondary healing in the treatment of sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus.

A medico-economic analysis evaluating the incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratio will be also done at 2 years. Additionally, an evaluation of the production costs of the new strategy (i.e. parasacral perforator flap) will be performed from the specific perspective of hospitals.

02

Conditions studied

  • Pilonidal Disease

Keywords

  • sacrococcygeal pilonidal disease
03

In context

Lead sponsor

University Hospital, Toulouse is the lead sponsor of 794 studies on the registry; 214 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 99 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Patient with primary or recurrent sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus disease,
  • Minimum delay of 1 month after an infection of the pilonidal areas,

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Florid abcess in the pilonidal sinus,
  • Impossibility of general anesthesia, allergy to methylene blue, anticoagulant therapy,
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
21 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Active comparator
    Open excision

    open excision and healing by secondary intention, marsupialization, excision and primary closure (midline or off-midline), excision and repair by flap.

    Procedure: open excision

  • Experimental
    parasacral flap reconstruction

    The parasacral perforator flap has been described. It appears to be a good alternative, offering all the benefits of the reconstruction of the natal cleft in terms of lower rate of recurrence and lower time for complete wound healing. It also gives a better aesthetic result.

    Procedure: parasacral flap reconstruction

Interventions

  • Procedureparasacral flap reconstruction

    parasacral flap reconstruction

  • Procedureopen excision

    open excision and healing by secondary intention, marsupialization, excision and primary closure (midline or off-midline), excision and repair by flap.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. recurrence

    the rate of recurrence during a follow up of 2 years.

    Time frame: 2 years

Secondary outcomes

  1. cost-effectiveness

    Incremental cost-effectiveness evaluation of comparative perforation flap surgery to the reference strategy in patients with pilonidal sinus cysts : the number of recurrences at 24 month

    Time frame: 2 years

  2. cost-utility

    Incremental cost-utility ratios

    Time frame: 2 years

07

Study locations

2 sites
  • University Hospital
    Montpellier, 34295, France
  • University hospital
    Toulouse, 31059, France
08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jan 3, 2024, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03534700
Lead sponsor
University Hospital, Toulouse
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
May 23, 2018
Start date
Jun 1, 2018
Primary completion
Sep 1, 2020
Completion
Sep 25, 2023
Last update
Jan 3, 2024

Study contacts

Benoit CHAPUT, MD
principal investigator · University Hospital, Toulouse

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is terminated, as verified in Jan 2024. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion