Treatment options for patients with pilonidal sinus disease: PITSTOP, a mixed-methods evaluation.

Background: There is no consensus on optimal management of pilonidal disease. Surgical practice is varied, and existing literature is mainly single-centre cohort studies of varied disease severity, interventions and outcome assessments. Objectives: A prospective cohort study to determine: • disease severity and intervention relationship • most valued outcomes and treatment preference by patients • recommendations for policy and future research. Design: Observational cohort study with nested mixed-methods case study. Discrete choice experiment. Clinician survey. Three-stage Delphi survey for patients and clinicians. Inter-rater reliability of classification system. Setting: Thirty-one National Health Service trusts. Participants: Patients aged > 16 years referred for elective surgical treatment of pilonidal disease. Interventions: Surgery. Main outcome measures: Pain postoperative days 1 and 7, time to healing and return to normal activities, complications, recurrence. Outcomes compared between major and minor procedures using regression modelling, propensity score-based approaches and augmented inverse probability weighting to account for measured potential confounding features. Results: Clinician survey: There was significant heterogeneity in surgeon practice preference. Limited training opportunities may impede efforts to improve practice. Cohort study: Over half of patients (60%; N = 667) had a major procedure. For these procedures, pain was greater on day 1 and day 7 (mean difference day 1 pain 1.58 points, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 2.01 points, n = 536; mean difference day 7 pain 1.53 points, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.95 points, n = 512). There were higher complication rates (adjusted risk difference 17.5%, 95% confidence interval 9.1 to 25.9%, n = 579), lower recurrence (adjusted risk difference -10.1%, 95% confidence interval -18.1 to -2.1%, n = 575), and longer time to healing (>34 days estimated difference) and time to return to normal activities (difference 25.9 days, 95% confidence interval 18.4 to 33.4 days). Mixed-methods analysis: Patient decision-making was influenced by prior experience of disease and anticipated recovery time. The burden involved in wound care and the gap between expected and actual time for recovery were the principal reasons given for decision regret. Discrete choice experiment: The strongest predictors of patient treatment choice were risk of infection/persistence (attribute importance 70%), and shorter recovery time (attribute importance 30%). Patients were willing to trade off these attributes. Those aged over 30 years had a higher risk tolerance (22.35-34.67%) for treatment failure if they could experience rapid recovery. There was no strong evidence that younger patients were willing to accept higher risk of treatment failure in exchange for a faster recovery. Patients were uniform in rejecting excision-and-leave-open because of the protracted nursing care it entailed. Wysocki classification analysis: There was acceptable inter-rater agreement (κ = 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.61). Consensus exercise: Five research and practice priorities were identified. The top research priority was that a comparative trial should broadly group interventions. The top practice priority was that any interventions should be less disruptive than the disease itself. Limitations: Incomplete recruitment and follow-up data were an issue, particularly given the multiple interventions. Assumptions were made regarding risk adjustment. Conclusions and future work: Results suggest the burden of pilonidal surgery is greater than reported previously. This can be mitigated with better selection of intervention according to disease type and patient desired goals. Results indicate a framework for future higher-quality trials that stratify disease and utilise broad groupings of common interventions with development of a patient-centred core outcome set. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN95551898. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/17/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 33. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Pilonidal disease is caused by ingrowing hairs between the buttocks. It can cause pain and infection and may need surgery. We do not know which operation gives the best results, or who operations help. PITSTOP aimed to find out which operation is the best and what is important to patients when deciding on surgery, and to suggest ideas for better treatment and future research. We looked at what operations were done and their outcomes. We interviewed patients about their experiences. Some completed a survey to help us understand what operations they might prefer based on risks and outcomes. Surgeons completed a survey about their experiences, and we explored whether a new tool could help us tell the difference between 'mild' and 'bad' disease. We used findings from these studies to help patients and surgeons give priorities for future practice and research. Six hundred and sixty-seven patients joined PITSTOP. People who had a major operation had more pain and took longer to return to normal activities. Some were still affected 6 months after surgery. However, disease recurrence was lower than after a minor procedure. Patients based decisions about treatment on the likelihood of success and the time to recover. The study and the surgeons' survey both showed marked differences in practice. Surgeons tended to offer one or two operations learned during training. A classification tool put cases in similar groups, but this did not influence treatment choices. The consensus exercise identified five research priorities, the top one being to put types of surgery into two groups. Of the five practice priorities, the top one was that surgery should not make the patient worse than the disease. There is variation in the treatment of pilonidal disease. Wound issues and impact on daily living should be avoided. The highlighted research questions should be addressed to improve care.

Patient preferences for pilonidal sinus treatments: a discrete choice experiment survey.

BACKGROUND: A range of treatments are available for pilonidal sinus disease (PSD), each of which has a different risk/benefit profile. The aim of this study was to collect patient views on which interventions they would rather avoid and which outcomes they most value for PSD. METHOD: We conducted an online survey using the discrete choice experiment (DCE) method. DCE task involved participants choosing the best treatment option when presented with a set of competing hypothetical treatment profiles. Participants with symptomatic PSD, referred for elective surgery were recruited from 33 NHS trusts between 2020 and 2022. Collected DCE data were analysed using regression analyses. RESULTS: One hundred and eleven participants completed the survey. In the overall group, low risk of infection/persistence was the most important characteristic when making a treatment decision (attribute importance score of 70%), followed by treatments with shorter recovery time with an attribute importance score of 30%. The results demonstrated that patients are willing to accept trade-offs between treatment recovery time and risk of infection/persistence. Patients above 30 years old are willing to accept a higher chance of treatment failure in exchange for rapid treatment recovery (risk tolerance between 22.35 - 34.67 percentage points). Conversely, patients in the younger age groups, were risk averse, and were only willing to accept a small risk 1.51-2.15 in exchange for a treatment with faster recovery time. All patient groups appear to the reject the excision and leave open technique due to the need for protracted nursing care. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the need for shared decision making when it comes to surgery for PSD.