Coccygectomy for refractory coccydynia, old-fashioned but effective procedure: A retrospective analysis.

PURPOSE: Coccydynia, characterized by persistent pain in the coccygeal region, significantly impacts patients' quality of life. While various treatment modalities exist, including conservative measures and surgical interventions like coccygectomy, optimal management remains unclear. This retrospective cohort study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes, functional improvements, and quality of life in patients with chronic coccydynia undergoing either infiltrative treatment or coccygectomy. METHODS: Data from patients treated at our institution from January 2018 to December 2022 were analyzed. Participants meeting inclusion criteria were divided into two groups: Group A underwent coccygectomy, while Group B received conservative therapy. Clinical assessments, radiographic evaluations, and patient-reported outcomes were collected preoperatively and at follow-up intervals. RESULTS: Of the 223 initially examined patients, 55 met inclusion criteria. Group A (n = 21) underwent coccygectomy, while Group B (n = 34) received conservative therapy. Both groups showed significant pain reduction post-intervention, with sustained improvement in Group A. Functional outcomes favoured Group A, with significant improvements in disability and quality of life measures. Complications were minimal, with only one case of superficial wound infection in Group A. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that coccygectomy provides superior and lasting pain relief, functional improvement, and quality of life improvement compared to conservative therapy. While complications were minimal, further research with larger cohorts is warranted to validate these results and explore long-term outcomes. Despite its historical association with complications, advancements in surgical techniques and perioperative care have led to improved outcomes and reduced complication rates. Thus, coccygectomy should be considered in the treatment algorithm for patients with debilitating coccydynia.

Short-segment percutaneous fusion versus open posterior fusion with screw in the fractured vertebra for thoracolumbar junction burst vertebral fracture treatment.

Objectives: The treatment options for thoracolumbar junction burst fractures remain a topic of controversy. Short-segment percutaneous fixation (SSPF) and short-segment open fixation including the fractured level (SSOFIFL) are both viable procedures for managing these fractures. At present, there is a lack of evidence in the literature demonstrating the absolute superiority of one treatment over the other. This study aimed to compare these two surgical strategies with a focus on radiological and clinical outcomes. Materials and Methods: This retrospective case-control multicenter analysis involved patients with A3 and A4 vertebral fractures at the thoracolumbar junction (T11-L2) who underwent surgical treatment with either SSPF or SSOFIFL in the participating centers. Clinical outcomes were measured using the Oswestry Disability Index and visual analogue scale (VAS) both pre- and postoperatively. Radiological outcomes included kyphotic deformity (KD), anterior vertebral body height (AVBH), segmental kyphosis, and sagittal alignment parameters. Results: A total of 156 patients were enrolled in the study, with 81 patients in Group A (SSPF) and 75 patients in Group B (SSOFIFL). Group B demonstrated better correction of KD (Group B: 3.4 ± 2.7° vs. Group A: 8.3 ± 3.2°, P = 0.003), AVBH, and sagittal alignment. A minor loss of correction was observed in Group B with respect to Group A (0.9 ± 1.7° vs 4.3° ± 2.1°, P = 0.043). Blood losses were lower in Group A (78 ± 15 min vs. 118 ± 23 min, P = 0.021) as well as during surgery (121.3 ± 34 mL vs. 210.2 ± 52 mL, P = 0.031), but the post-operative hemoglobin levels were comparable between the two groups. Conclusion: SSOFIFL appears to show a major amount of KD correction and prevent loss of correction. This technique should be the preferred choice whenever possible. However, SSPF can be considered a valid alternative for damage control in polytrauma patients and fractures with low KD.

Increased Frequency of Hand Hygiene and Other Infection Prevention Practices Correlates with Reduced Surgical Wound Infection Rates in Spinal Surgery during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, many changes were done in the hospital practice, and new guidelines were issued in order to contain the infection spread. One of the most common measures is represented by a correct and frequent hand washing. Recently, an association between increased adherence to hand hygiene (HH) protocols and reduction in hospital infections was documented however no studies about the surgical wound infection rate were reported in the Literature. METHODS: The present study represents a multicentric retrospective epidemiological study. The HH compliance rate was recorded through direct observations by trained nurses, 24 h a day. The primary outcome was HH compliance rate. The association of HH with spinal surgical wound infections was the secondary outcome. RESULTS: We reported a compliance to HH practices during the pandemic period of 85.2% compared with 57% observed during 2019. Our analysis showed an overall surgical wound infection reduction of 66.6% during the hospital stay in the pandemic period. CONCLUSION: Hand hygiene has always been considered one of the most effective, reproducible and low-cost weapons to deal with hospital infections. The good health habits acquired during the COVID-19 pandemic should be maintained even after the virus is eradicated.