Genc Perdecioglu Gevher Rabia, Yildiz Gokhan
Department of Algology, Ankara Etlik City Hospital, Ankara, TUR.
Cureus. 2024 Sep 10;16(9):e69118. doi: 10.7759/cureus.69118. eCollection 2024 Sep.
Background and objective Coccydynia is a condition that causes pain around the coccyx, severely limiting functionality. Interventional treatment options are available for cases that do not respond to conservative treatment. Coccygeal nerve block (CnB) is a novel method for treating coccydynia. This study compared the efficacy of CnB and ganglion impar block (GiB) and aimed to evaluate the efficacy of CnB in treating coccydynia. Methods The 12-week results of 56 patients were analysed. One group underwent ultrasound (US)-guided CnB, while the other group underwent fluoroscopy (FL)-guided GiB. Pain intensity was assessed using the numerical rating scale (NRS), and functionality was assessed using the PARIS Coccydynia Functionality Questionnaire. Evaluations were conducted before treatment, as well as four and 12 weeks after treatment. Results The baseline median NRS score was eight in both groups, while at week 12, it was three in the CnB group and 2.5 in the GiB group. The median PARIS score at baseline was seven in the CnB group and 6.5 in the GiB group, while at week 12, it was four and three, respectively. At week 12, compared to baseline, both the CNB and GiB groups showed statistically significant improvements in NRS and PARIS scores (p<0.001). When comparing the two groups, no significant difference was observed in the NRS and PARIS scores before and four and 12 weeks after treatment. No serious adverse events were observed in any patient. Conclusions Coccydynia is sometimes refractory to treatment. In our study, we found that CnB, a method recently used in the treatment of coccydynia, was as effective as GiB, which has been used for a long time, and we found no evidence of superiority. The lack of radiation exposure due to its US-guided application, the superficial course of the coccygeal nerves and the low depth of needle penetration make it easier to perform. These advantages suggest that it will be a preferable method in the treatment of coccydynia.
背景与目的 尾骨痛是一种导致尾骨周围疼痛的病症,严重限制功能。对于对保守治疗无反应的病例,有介入治疗选择。尾骨神经阻滞(CnB)是一种治疗尾骨痛的新方法。本研究比较了CnB和奇神经节阻滞(GiB)的疗效,并旨在评估CnB治疗尾骨痛的疗效。方法 分析了56例患者的12周结果。一组接受超声(US)引导下的CnB,而另一组接受荧光透视(FL)引导下的GiB。使用数字评分量表(NRS)评估疼痛强度,使用巴黎尾骨痛功能问卷评估功能。在治疗前以及治疗后4周和12周进行评估。结果 两组的基线NRS中位数评分均为8分,而在第12周时,CnB组为3分,GiB组为2.5分。CnB组基线时巴黎评分中位数为7分,GiB组为6.5分,而在第12周时,分别为4分和3分。在第12周时,与基线相比,CNB组和GiB组的NRS和巴黎评分均有统计学显著改善(p<0.001)。比较两组时,治疗前以及治疗后4周和12周的NRS和巴黎评分均未观察到显著差异。未在任何患者中观察到严重不良事件。结论 尾骨痛有时对治疗具有难治性。在我们的研究中,我们发现CnB(一种最近用于治疗尾骨痛的方法)与长期使用的GiB一样有效,并且我们没有发现优势证据。由于其超声引导应用而缺乏辐射暴露、尾骨神经的表浅走行以及针穿刺深度低,使其更易于实施。这些优点表明它将是治疗尾骨痛的一种更可取的方法。