PURPOSE: The objective of the present study was to compare different off-midline techniques in terms of their advantages and disadvantages. METHODS: A total of 81 patients were included in this prospective, controlled, randomized study. Patients in group 1 were treated with the Limberg flap, and patients in group 2 were treated with Mutaf technique. Patients were followed up for 9 months postsurgically and assessed at regular intervals. RESULTS: A total of 41 and 40 patients received surgical treatment with Limberg or Mutaf techniques, respectively. The 2 groups were similar in terms of age, gender, body mass index, and Tezel pilonidal sinus classification. Also, the 2 groups were comparable with regard to the frequency of preoperative discharge from the wound site, history of abscess formation, and the resultant antibiotic use. Early results showed similar recurrence rates and surgical-site complications between the 2 groups. Although a lower visual analogue scale score was found in group 2 at postoperative day 1, seroma persistence, time to withdrawal of surgical drains, and wound healing were more prolonged. CONCLUSION: In this study, Mutaf technique was comparable to Limberg flap in the treatment of pilonidal sinus. Therefore, Mutaf technique may be offered as a viable surgical therapeutic option among off-midline closure approaches.
Abscess ; Body Mass Index ; Classification ; Humans ; Pilonidal Sinus* ; Prospective Studies ; Recurrence ; Seroma ; Surgical Flaps ; Wound Healing ; Wounds and Injuries