Outcomes reported in comparative studies of surgical management of pilonidal disease: Systematic review to inform a core outcome set

BACKGROUND: Evidence synthesis in pilonidal disease surgery is limited by heterogeneity in outcome selection, definition, measurement and follow-up. This systematic review aimed to identify and describe outcomes reported in comparative studies of surgical management of pilonidal disease to inform development of a core outcome set. METHODS: PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL were searched from inception to 28 November 2025. Randomised controlled trials and comparative observational studies evaluating surgical interventions for pilonidal disease were eligible. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted study characteristics and outcome data. Verbatim outcomes were standardised, grouped into domains and summarised descriptively. Because the objective was to map outcome reporting rather than estimate treatment effects, risk-of-bias assessment and GRADE appraisal were not undertaken. RESULTS: A total of 155 studies were included, comprising 93 randomised trials and 62 observational studies. Ten outcome domains were identified. Recurrence was reported most frequently (112 studies, 72.3%), followed by non-infective complications (103, 66.5%), pain (83, 53.5%), wound healing (82, 52.9%) and return to normal activities (63, 40.6%). Patient-important domains were less frequently reported, including health-related quality of life or satisfaction (50, 32.3%) and cosmesis (17, 11.0%). Among outcomes designated as primary, wound healing was most common (51 studies, 32.9%), followed by recurrence (35, 22.6%) and postoperative complications (25, 16.1%). Pain (6, 3.9%), return to normal activities/work (9, 5.8%), and psychological or quality-of-life outcomes (3, 1.9%) were rarely primary outcomes. Definitions, measurement instruments, assessment timepoints and overall follow-up duration varied substantially across studies. CONCLUSIONS: Comparative studies of pilonidal disease surgery predominantly prioritise recurrence, healing and complications, whereas patient-important outcomes are reported less consistently and are infrequently prioritised. Standardisation of outcome selection, definitions and measurement is needed. These findings support development of a core outcome set for future trials in pilonidal disease surgery. TRAIL REGISTRATION: CRD420251128698.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Colorectal Disease
Published
2026-06-25
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.70534
Primary Topic
Anorectal Disease Treatments and Outcomes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Outcomes reported in comparative studies of surgical management of pilonidal disease: Systematic review to inform a core outcome set

Lilong Wu, Zubing Mei, Qingming Wang, Hui Zang et al.
Colorectal Disease
Anorectal Disease Treatments and Outcomes
article

Outcomes reported in comparative studies of surgical management of pilonidal disease: Systematic review to inform a core outcome set

Lilong Wu, Zubing Mei, Qingming Wang, Hui Zang, Ye Han, Cheng Tang, Peixin Du, De Zheng
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Evidence synthesis in pilonidal disease surgery is limited by heterogeneity in outcome selection, definition, measurement and follow-up. This systematic review aimed to identify and describe outcomes reported in comparative studies of surgical management of pilonidal disease to inform development of a core outcome set. METHODS: PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL were searched from inception to 28 November 2025. Randomised controlled trials and comparative observational studies evaluating surgical interventions for pilonidal disease were eligible. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted study characteristics and outcome data. Verbatim outcomes were standardised, grouped into domains and summarised descriptively. Because the objective was to map outcome reporting rather than estimate treatment effects, risk-of-bias assessment and GRADE appraisal were not undertaken. RESULTS: A total of 155 studies were included, comprising 93 randomised trials and 62 observational studies. Ten outcome domains were identified. Recurrence was reported most frequently (112 studies, 72.3%), followed by non-infective complications (103, 66.5%), pain (83, 53.5%), wound healing (82, 52.9%) and return to normal activities (63, 40.6%). Patient-important domains were less frequently reported, including health-related quality of life or satisfaction (50, 32.3%) and cosmesis (17, 11.0%). Among outcomes designated as primary, wound healing was most common (51 studies, 32.9%), followed by recurrence (35, 22.6%) and postoperative complications (25, 16.1%). Pain (6, 3.9%), return to normal activities/work (9, 5.8%), and psychological or quality-of-life outcomes (3, 1.9%) were rarely primary outcomes. Definitions, measurement instruments, assessment timepoints and overall follow-up duration varied substantially across studies. CONCLUSIONS: Comparative studies of pilonidal disease surgery predominantly prioritise recurrence, healing and complications, whereas patient-important outcomes are reported less consistently and are infrequently prioritised. Standardisation of outcome selection, definitions and measurement is needed. These findings support development of a core outcome set for future trials in pilonidal disease surgery. TRAIL REGISTRATION: CRD420251128698.

Colorectal DiseaseVol. 28(7)
Yunnan Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine (CN), Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (CN), Shanghai Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital (CN), Shuguang Hospital (CN), YangPu Geriatric Hospital (CN), Yangpu Hospital of Tongji University (CN), Yunnan University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (CN)
Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Anorectal Disease Treatments and Outcomes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.