JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
The treatment of chronic coccydynia with intrarectal manipulation: a randomized controlled study.
Spine 2006 August 16
STUDY DESIGN: Randomized open study.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of intrarectal manual treatment of chronic coccydynia; and to determine the factors predictive of a good outcome.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In 2 open uncontrolled studies, the success rate of intrarectal manipulation of the coccyx was around 25%.
METHODS: Patients were randomized into 2 groups of 51 patients each: 1 group received three sessions of coccygeal manipulation, and the other low-power external physiotherapy. The manual treatment was guided by the findings on stress radiographs. Patients were assessed, at 1 month and 6 months, using a VAS and (modified) McGill Pain, Paris (functional coccydynia impact), and (modified) Dallas Pain questionnaires.
RESULTS: At baseline, the 2 groups were similar regarding all parameters. At 1 month, all the median VAS and questionnaire values were modified by -34.7%, -36.0%, -20.0%, and -33.8%, respectively, in the manipulation group, versus -19.1%, -7.7%, 20.0%, and -15.7%, respectively, in the control (physiotherapy) group (P = 0.09 [borderline], 0.03, 0.02, and 0.02, respectively). Good results were twice as frequent in the manipulation group compared with the control group, at 1 month (36% vs. 20%, P = 0.075) and at 6 months (22% vs. 12%, P = 0.18). The main predictors of a good outcome were stable coccyx, shorter duration, traumatic etiology, and lower score in the affective parts of the McGill and Dallas questionnaires.
CONCLUSIONS: We found a mild effectiveness of intrarectal manipulation in chronic coccydynia.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of intrarectal manual treatment of chronic coccydynia; and to determine the factors predictive of a good outcome.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In 2 open uncontrolled studies, the success rate of intrarectal manipulation of the coccyx was around 25%.
METHODS: Patients were randomized into 2 groups of 51 patients each: 1 group received three sessions of coccygeal manipulation, and the other low-power external physiotherapy. The manual treatment was guided by the findings on stress radiographs. Patients were assessed, at 1 month and 6 months, using a VAS and (modified) McGill Pain, Paris (functional coccydynia impact), and (modified) Dallas Pain questionnaires.
RESULTS: At baseline, the 2 groups were similar regarding all parameters. At 1 month, all the median VAS and questionnaire values were modified by -34.7%, -36.0%, -20.0%, and -33.8%, respectively, in the manipulation group, versus -19.1%, -7.7%, 20.0%, and -15.7%, respectively, in the control (physiotherapy) group (P = 0.09 [borderline], 0.03, 0.02, and 0.02, respectively). Good results were twice as frequent in the manipulation group compared with the control group, at 1 month (36% vs. 20%, P = 0.075) and at 6 months (22% vs. 12%, P = 0.18). The main predictors of a good outcome were stable coccyx, shorter duration, traumatic etiology, and lower score in the affective parts of the McGill and Dallas questionnaires.
CONCLUSIONS: We found a mild effectiveness of intrarectal manipulation in chronic coccydynia.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
Read by QxMD is copyright © 2021 QxMD Software Inc. All rights reserved. By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app