ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2026
Comparison of Midline and Paramedian Approaches in Coccygectomy.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study compared the clinical efficacy and complication profiles of classical midline versus paramedian incision techniques in coccygectomy for chronic refractory coccygodynia. We hypothesized that the paramedian approach would reduce wound-related complications and improve early postoperative pain and function. MATERIAL AND METHODS A retrospective cohort of 41 patients (32 women, 9 men) who underwent coccygectomy between 2015 and 2023 was analyzed. Patients were divided into a classical midline incision group (n=18) and a paramedian incision group (n=23). Outcomes included wound healing time, wound dehiscence, surgical site infections, intraoperative blood loss, visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Statistical comparisons were performed. RESULTS The paramedian group had significantly lower wound dehiscence rates than the midline group (0% vs 27.8%, P=0.01). There were fewer surgical site infections in the paramedian group than in the midline group (4.3% vs 22.2%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.16). Early postoperative pain at 3 months was significantly lower in the paramedian group than midline group (mean VAS 3.22 vs 4.06, P=0.045). Long-term VAS and ODI scores showed no significant difference. Mean wound healing time was shorter in the paramedian group (4.46 vs 5.12 months), with higher, yet not significant, patient satisfaction. Intraoperative blood loss and operative duration were similar. CONCLUSIONS Both incision techniques offer comparable long-term outcomes. However, the paramedian approach provides better early pain relief and fewer wound complications, representing a safer, more effective alternative for refractory coccygodynia.
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.