Pilonidal, Delirium & Gallbladder Polyps — Core

Why they differ

An earlier cross-check circulated an alternative midline trajectory attributed to Stauffer 2018, and the handbook initially adopted '~11% at 1 year → ~20% at 5 years'. Direct inspection of Stauffer 2018's own published recurrence table gives the values in position 2; the 11.2% trajectory could not be located in the paper's tables. An earlier registry summary also printed the midline/off-midline values inverted; corrected 2026-11-06.

Adopted

Stauffer's table values (merged: 3.4% / 7.0% / 16.8% / 32.0%); the patient-facing 5-year figure presents both analyses as one range — ~17–22 per 100 at 5 years (merged 16.8% ↔ RCT tier 21.9%).

Justification

Owner decision (2026-11-06): a directly verified primary source outranks any secondary cross-check. The unverified trajectory is recorded for transparency and is NOT used in any patient material. The time anchor remains mandatory: a pilonidal recurrence figure quoted without follow-up duration is meaningless.

Why they differ

Follow-up duration, not technique or population — recurrence accumulates with time, so short-follow-up pooling systematically underestimates it.

Adopted

Patient-facing ~11–15% with the follow-up anchor, presenting both anchors — the pooled meta-analytic estimate of 11% (29 studies, mixed follow-up 6–60 months) and the longest-follow-up single series (Dessily 14.9% at ~17 months). The earlier framing '15–20% within the first year' is withdrawn: 14.9% is cumulative over ~17 months, not a first-year rate.

Justification

Neither anchor alone is complete: the pooled figure mixes short follow-ups, and the single series is one centre (adjudicated 2026-11-06 after the Perplexity cross-layer).