中国麻风皮肤病杂志 ›› 2026, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (6): 412-416.doi: 10.12144/zgmfskin202606412

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

封闭负压引流联合中线闭合术与一期中线闭合术治疗骶尾部藏毛窦的疗效比较

王士强1,付妍婕2,刘立倩1,彭京梁2,庞彩霞3,吴灿4   

  1. 1临沂市人民医院皮肤科，山东临沂，276000； 2临沂市人民医院烧伤整形科，山东临沂，276000；3 昌乐县人民医院烧伤整形科，山东潍坊，261000；4 临沂市人民医院医学美容中心，山东临沂，276000
  • 出版日期:2026-06-15 发布日期:2026-06-04

Comparison of the effects of vacuum sealing drainage combined with midline suture and primary midline suture in the treatment of sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus

WANG Shiqiang1, FU Yanjie2, LIU Liqian1, PENG Jingliang2, PANG Caixia3, WU Can4   

  1. 1 Department Dermatology, Linyi People's Hospital, Linyi 276000, China; 2 Department of Burn and Plastic Surgery, Linyi People's Hospital, Linyi 276000, China; 3 Department of Burn and Plastic Surgery, Changle People's Hospital, Weifang 261000, China; 4 Medical Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Center, Linyi People's Hospital, Linyi 276000, China
  • Online:2026-06-15 Published:2026-06-04

PDF (PC)

5

摘要： 目的：比较封闭负压引流联合中线闭合术与一期中线闭合术治疗骶尾部藏毛窦的疗效。方法：本研究回顾性分析了临沂市人民医院2019年1月至2024年1月手术治疗骶尾部藏毛窦的39例患者临床资料，根据手术方式分为封闭负压引流联合中线闭合术组（治疗组，21例）和一期中线闭合术组（对照组，18例）。比较两组在手术时间、愈合时间、抗生素使用率、复发率、局部并发症发生率等方面的差异。结果：治疗组愈合时间、抗生素使用率、复发率、局部并发症发生率分别为(13.95±1.60)d、4.76%、0%、4.76%，对照组分别为(24.11±3.77)d、100%、22.22%、27.78%，治疗组的手术时间长于对照组［(59.76±6.61)min vs.(56.61±3.47)min］，差异均有统计学意义（圴P＜0.05）。治疗组出现伤口裂开1例；对照组出现伤口裂开2例，皮缘坏死2例，感染1 例，复发4例。结论：与一期中线闭合术治疗骶尾部藏毛窦比较，封闭负压引流联合中线闭合术手术时间长，但复发率低、愈合时间短、局部并发症少、抗生素使用率低。

关键词: 骶尾部藏毛窦, 封闭负压引流术, 一期中线闭合术

Abstract: Objective: To compare the efficacy of vacuum sealing drainage (VSD) combined with midline suture and primary midline suture in the treatment of sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus. Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of 39 patients who were surgically treated for sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus from January 2019 to January 2024 in Linyi People's Hospital, and were divided into 21 cases of VSD combined with midline suture (treatment group) and 18 cases of primary midline suture (control group) according to the surgical method. The differences between the two groups in terms of operative time, healing time, antibiotic usage rate, recurrence rate and local complication rate were compared. Results: TThe healing time, antibiotic usage rate, recurrence rate, and incidence of local complications in the treatment group were 13.95±1.60 days, 4.76%, 0%, 4.76%, respectively, while those in the control group were 24.11±3.77 days, 100%, 22.22%, and 27.78%, respectively. The operation time in the treatment group was longer than that in the control group (59.76±6.61 vs. 56.61±3.47 minutes), with statistically significant differences (Ps＜0.05). One case of wound dehiscence occurred in the treatment group; in the control group, there were 2 cases of wound dehiscence, 2 cases of skin edge necrosis, 1 case of infection, and 4 cases of recurrence. Conclusion: Compared with primary midline closure for sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus, closed negative pressure drainage combined with midline closure has a longer operation time, but is associated with a lower recurrence rate, shorter healing time, fewer local complications, and a lower antibiotic usage rate.

Key words: sacrococcygeal pilonidal sinus, vacuum sealing drainage, primary midline suture