Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33312489›Full record

ArticleOrthopedic reviews2020

Resection of the coccyx as an outpatient procedure.

Ante M Kalstad, Rainer G Knobloch, Vilhjalmur Finsen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Orthopedic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 40% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ante M Kalstad
Rainer G KnoblochDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, St. Olav's University Hospital, Trondheim.
Vilhjalmur FinsenDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, St. Olav's University Hospital, Trondheim.
St Olav's University Hospital · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We wished to determine if coccygectomy as an outpatient procedure is a safe alternative to inpatient treatment. 68 patients were treated at our institution with coccygectomy as an outpatient procedure during a seven-year period. Out of these 61 (90%) responded to final follow-up questionnaires after a minimum of one year. We recorded satisfaction with the outpatient modality, and compared postoperative complications and long-term satisfaction with patients who had been operated as inpatients during the same period. Out of the 61 patients who responded to final follow up, 39 (64%) were satisfied with having the operation as an outpatient procedure. The patients who would have preferred overnight hospitalization generally felt that traveling home the same day was painful. There was significantly less pain on the journey home if the procedure had been performed under spinal anaesthesia. In terms of complications, there were 10% reoperations due to deep infection in the outpatient group, and 12% superficial wound infections treated with oral antibiotics. The corresponding numbers for the in-patient group were 8% and 14%. The long-term success rate was similar for both groups. 87% of outpatients and 89% of inpatients reported that they would have consented to the operation if they had known the result in advance. Coccygectomy as an outpatient procedure gives similar results to inpatient treatment and can be regarded as an acceptable alternative. Spinal anaesthesia reduces postoperative pain on the journey home.

Indexed as

ambulatory surgerycoccygectomyCoccyxoutpatient surgerytailbone

Identifiers

PMID33312489
PMCPMC7726824
OpenAlexW3106938232

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.