ArticleHeliyon2024
Evaluation of the effectiveness of caudal epidural steroid injection as an adjuvant to ganglion impar pulsed radiofrequency therapy in chronic coccygodynia.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contemporary Management of Coccydynia.Neurospine · 2026Review
- Predictors of Long-Term Response to Ganglion Impar Block With or Without Caudal Epidural Steroid Injection in Chronic Coccydynia: A Retrospective Study.Pain research & management · 2026Observational
- Management strategies of pediatric coccydynia: a narrative review.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of adding caudal epidural steroid injection (CESI) to ganglion impar pulsed radiofrequency (GI-PRF) therapy in patients with refractory chronic coccygodynia, and to determine the effect of pain duration and trauma on treatment success. Materials and methods: Forty patients who underwent GI-PRF (n = 20) or GI-PRF + CESI (n = 20) were retrospectively assessed for age, gender, pain duration, history of trauma to the coccyx, Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain scores pre-procedure and 1, 3, and 6 months post-procedure and satisfaction rates at 6 months post-procedure. Satisfaction was categorized as excellent, high, moderate, and low. Results: In both groups, NRS scores were significantly decreased at 6 months (pre-vs. 6 mo. post-procedure: GI-PRF [8 vs. 5], GI-PRF + CESI [8.5 vs. 3.5]; p < 0.001). The proportion of patients reporting excellent satisfaction was significantly higher in the GI PRF + CESI group (50 % vs. 15 %; p < 0.05). Patients with trauma history in the GI-PRF + CESI group had significantly lower median NRS values at 6 months compared to patients in both groups with negative trauma history (p < 0.02). Within the GI-PRF only group, patients with trauma history had significantly lower NRS scores at 6 months than those without a history of trauma (p = 0.012). Pain duration did not significantly impact satisfaction levels (p = 0.055). Conclusion: GI-PRF therapy was effective in coccygodynia, especially in patients with positive trauma history, and adjuvant CESI increased patient satisfaction by providing better pain control.
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.