Background and Objectives: In this study, we aimed to evaluate pain intensity in patients after pilonidal disease surgeries of varying extent using pressure algometry and the visual analog scale and to explore potential correlations between these methods. Materials and Methods: A total of 78 adult patients with symptomatic pilonidal cysts were enrolled in this study. The patients were divided into two groups based on the type of surgery assigned to each patient at the pre-hospital consultation: pit-picking surgery (n = 39) and radical excision (n = 39). The pain levels at the surgical site were assessed and compared using the visual analog scale (VAS) and pressure algometry the morning before surgery and the day after the operation. Results: There was no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) in VAS measurement results between surgical groups when comparing pain intensity experienced by patients before, during, and after surgery. Notably, specific pressure algometry variables (pressure pain tolerance left 2.05 ± 1.46 compared to 1.42 ± 0.73 kg/cm², p = 0.02; maximum pressure pain tolerance left 2.91 ± 1.33 compared to 2.32 ± 1.14 kg/cm², p = 0.04; maximum pressure pain tolerance center 2.51 ± 1.07 compared to 1.91 ± 0.91 kg/cm², p = 0.01; interval of pressure pain tolerance center 0.98 ± 0.62 compared to 0.59 ± 0.39 kg/cm², p = 0.00) on the first postoperative day were significantly lower in the “pit-picking” group compared to the excision group. Furthermore, no statistically significant correlation was found between VAS and pressure algometry measurements either before surgery or on the first postoperative day. Conclusions: In the early postoperative period following pilonidal disease surgery of varying extents, pain measured with the VAS does not differ. In contrast, the pressure algometry method showed greater pain in the minimally invasive surgery cohort on the first postoperative day. However, further larger studies are needed to compare these pain assessment methods in reporting pain intensity experienced during patient movement.

Background: Pilonidal sinus disease is an inflammatory condition characterised by formations ranging from minor cysts to extensive sinus tracts in the natal cleft in the sacrococcygeal area. Due to its complex and unique symptoms, the condition may not be adequately captured by the generic quality of life (QoL) instruments. In this study, we evaluated a newly developed pilonidal sinus disease-specific quality of life (SQoL) questionnaire, valuating its validity and applicability for measuring postoperative outcomes of pilonidal sinus disease. Materials and Methods: The study involved developing a SQoL. A total of 116 adult patients with chronic and acute symptomatic disease at the Kaunas Hospital of the Lithuanian University of Health Sciences (LUHS) were asked to complete both the SQoL and the SF-36v2 questionnaire. Key evaluation criteria for the SQoL questionnaire included internal consistency, measurement stability, as well as construct and discriminant validity. Results: 2 months after the procedure, 103 patients (response rate 88.79%) completed both questionnaires. Internal consistency was assessed 1 week after surgery, with the overall questionnaire achieving a Cronbach’s α coefficient of 0.919. The Spearman correlation coefficient for the total questionnaire score in the test–retest validation was 0.55 (CI 0.406–0.679), indicating a moderately significant correlation for all questions. Construct validity was evaluated by comparing the SQoL questionnaire with the results from various SF-36v2 domains 1 week after surgery. The highest inverse correlations were found between the corresponding domains of Physical Functioning and Role Physical Functioning (−0.770 and −0.600), with all correlations being statistically significant. Conclusions: A newly developed SQoL questionnaire has shown promise in assessing the impact of the disease and its treatment, particularly by addressing disease-specific symptoms. Standardising outcome measures can improve the reliability of meta-analyses and systematic reviews, which in turn helps to create more personalised care plans. The trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier of NCT05982028.