ArticleOrthopedic reviews2020
Resection of the coccyx as an outpatient procedure.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Progress in the diagnosis and treatment of fracture‑dislocation of the coccyx (Review).Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2025Review
- Management of coccygodynia: talking points from a systematic review of recent clinical trials.Annals of joint · 2025Review
- Minimally invasive endoscopic approach to perform complete coccygectomy in patients with chronic refractory coccydynia: illustrative case.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.