Cargando…

Coccydynia—The Efficacy of Available Treatment Options: A Systematic Review

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic Review OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of available treatment options for patients with persistent coccydynia through a systematic review. METHODS: Original peer-reviewed publications on treatment for coccydynia were identified using Preferred Reporting Items for Systema...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Andersen, Gustav Ø., Milosevic, Stefan, Jensen, Mads M., Andersen, Mikkel Ø., Simony, Ane, Rasmussen, Mikkel M., Carreon, Leah
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9393997/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34927468
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21925682211065389
_version_ 1784771391251283968
author Andersen, Gustav Ø.
Milosevic, Stefan
Jensen, Mads M.
Andersen, Mikkel Ø.
Simony, Ane
Rasmussen, Mikkel M.
Carreon, Leah
author_facet Andersen, Gustav Ø.
Milosevic, Stefan
Jensen, Mads M.
Andersen, Mikkel Ø.
Simony, Ane
Rasmussen, Mikkel M.
Carreon, Leah
author_sort Andersen, Gustav Ø.
collection PubMed
description STUDY DESIGN: Systematic Review OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of available treatment options for patients with persistent coccydynia through a systematic review. METHODS: Original peer-reviewed publications on treatment for coccydynia were identified using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines by performing a literature search of relevant databases, from their inception to January 17, 2020, combined with other sources. Data on extracted treatment outcome was pooled based on treatment categories to allow for meta-analysis. All outcomes relevant to the treatment efficacy of coccydynia were extracted. No single measure of outcome was consistently present among the included studies. Numeric Rating Scale, (NRS, 0–10) for pain was used as the primary outcome measure. Studies with treatment outcome on adult patients with chronic primary coccydynia were considered eligible. RESULTS: A total of 1980 patients across 64 studies were identified: five randomized controlled trials, one experimental study, one quasi-experimental study, 11 prospective observational studies, 45 retrospective studies and unpublished data from the DaneSpine registry. The greatest improvement in pain was achieved by patients who underwent radiofrequency therapy (RFT, mean Visual Analog Scale (VAS) decreased by 5.11 cm). A similar mean improvement was achieved from Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy (ESWT, 5.06), Coccygectomy (4.86) and Injection (4.22). Although improved, the mean change was less for those who received Ganglion block (2.98), Stretching/Manipulation (2.19) and Conservative/Usual Care (1.69). CONCLUSION: This study highlights the progressive nature of treatment for coccydynia, starting with noninvasive methods before considering coccygectomy. Non-surgical management provides pain relief for many patients. Coccygectomy is by far the most thoroughly investigated treatment option and may be beneficial for refractory cases. Future randomized controlled trials should be conducted with an aim to compare the efficacy of interventional therapies amongst each other and to coccygectomy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9393997
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93939972022-08-23 Coccydynia—The Efficacy of Available Treatment Options: A Systematic Review Andersen, Gustav Ø. Milosevic, Stefan Jensen, Mads M. Andersen, Mikkel Ø. Simony, Ane Rasmussen, Mikkel M. Carreon, Leah Global Spine J Review Articles STUDY DESIGN: Systematic Review OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of available treatment options for patients with persistent coccydynia through a systematic review. METHODS: Original peer-reviewed publications on treatment for coccydynia were identified using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines by performing a literature search of relevant databases, from their inception to January 17, 2020, combined with other sources. Data on extracted treatment outcome was pooled based on treatment categories to allow for meta-analysis. All outcomes relevant to the treatment efficacy of coccydynia were extracted. No single measure of outcome was consistently present among the included studies. Numeric Rating Scale, (NRS, 0–10) for pain was used as the primary outcome measure. Studies with treatment outcome on adult patients with chronic primary coccydynia were considered eligible. RESULTS: A total of 1980 patients across 64 studies were identified: five randomized controlled trials, one experimental study, one quasi-experimental study, 11 prospective observational studies, 45 retrospective studies and unpublished data from the DaneSpine registry. The greatest improvement in pain was achieved by patients who underwent radiofrequency therapy (RFT, mean Visual Analog Scale (VAS) decreased by 5.11 cm). A similar mean improvement was achieved from Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy (ESWT, 5.06), Coccygectomy (4.86) and Injection (4.22). Although improved, the mean change was less for those who received Ganglion block (2.98), Stretching/Manipulation (2.19) and Conservative/Usual Care (1.69). CONCLUSION: This study highlights the progressive nature of treatment for coccydynia, starting with noninvasive methods before considering coccygectomy. Non-surgical management provides pain relief for many patients. Coccygectomy is by far the most thoroughly investigated treatment option and may be beneficial for refractory cases. Future randomized controlled trials should be conducted with an aim to compare the efficacy of interventional therapies amongst each other and to coccygectomy. SAGE Publications 2021-12-18 2022-09 /pmc/articles/PMC9393997/ /pubmed/34927468 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21925682211065389 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work as published without adaptation or alteration, without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Review Articles
Andersen, Gustav Ø.
Milosevic, Stefan
Jensen, Mads M.
Andersen, Mikkel Ø.
Simony, Ane
Rasmussen, Mikkel M.
Carreon, Leah
Coccydynia—The Efficacy of Available Treatment Options: A Systematic Review
title Coccydynia—The Efficacy of Available Treatment Options: A Systematic Review
title_full Coccydynia—The Efficacy of Available Treatment Options: A Systematic Review
title_fullStr Coccydynia—The Efficacy of Available Treatment Options: A Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed Coccydynia—The Efficacy of Available Treatment Options: A Systematic Review
title_short Coccydynia—The Efficacy of Available Treatment Options: A Systematic Review
title_sort coccydynia—the efficacy of available treatment options: a systematic review
topic Review Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9393997/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34927468
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21925682211065389
work_keys_str_mv AT andersengustavø coccydyniatheefficacyofavailabletreatmentoptionsasystematicreview
AT milosevicstefan coccydyniatheefficacyofavailabletreatmentoptionsasystematicreview
AT jensenmadsm coccydyniatheefficacyofavailabletreatmentoptionsasystematicreview
AT andersenmikkelø coccydyniatheefficacyofavailabletreatmentoptionsasystematicreview
AT simonyane coccydyniatheefficacyofavailabletreatmentoptionsasystematicreview
AT rasmussenmikkelm coccydyniatheefficacyofavailabletreatmentoptionsasystematicreview
AT carreonleah coccydyniatheefficacyofavailabletreatmentoptionsasystematicreview