Vol. 9, Issue 3 (2023)

Comparison of the two different techniques for treatment of coccydynia: Pulse radiofrequency and corticosteroid injection

Author(s):

Abdulsamet Emet and Yunus Demirtas

Abstract:
Introduction: Ganglion impar block is a promising method in terms of results in patients with coccydynia. In this study, the results of patients diagnosed with coccydynia and treated with a single dose of corticosteroid and the pulse radiofrequency method were compared.
Material and Methods: A total of 26 patients who were treated with corticosteroids (Group 1) and pulse radiofrequency neurotomy (Group 2) between 2022 and 2023 with at least 6 months of follow-up were included in the study. Pre-procedure, 3rd and 6th month VAS scores were recorded during follow-up. The patients were called to their final controls, and their VAS scores and Oswestry scores were recorded and compared.
Results: The mean VAS scores of the patients in Groups 1 and 2 at 3 months were 1.4±0.6 and 1.5±0.6, respectively. The VAS scores of the patients in Group 1 at 6 months and at the last control were 1.3±0.6, 1.5±0.67, Group 2 were 0.4±0.5, 0.2±0.46, respectively. The Oswestry scores of the patients in Groups 1 and 2 at the final control were 22.5±1.9.17.3±1, respectively. When the patients' 3rd month VAS scores were compared, no significant difference was found (p>0.05). There was a significant difference between the 6th month and the last control VAS score (p<0.05). There was a significant difference in the Oswestry scores at the last control of the patients.
Conclusion: Although a single dose of corticosteroid and pulse radiofrequency neurotomy used in the treatment of chronic coccydynia seem similar, pulse radiofrequency treatment seems to be superior in terms of late follow-up results.

Pages: 356-359  |  352 Views  162 Downloads

How to cite this article:
Abdulsamet Emet and Yunus Demirtas. Comparison of the two different techniques for treatment of coccydynia: Pulse radiofrequency and corticosteroid injection. Int. J. Orthop. Sci. 2023;9(3):356-359. DOI: 10.22271/ortho.2023.v9.i3e.3445