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.

Rethinking Strategies for Multi-Metastatic Patients: A Comprehensive Retrospective Analysis on Open Posterior Fusion Versus Percutaneous Osteosynthesis in the Treatment of Vertebral Metastases.

Background: Managing vertebral metastases (VM) is still challenging in oncology, necessitating the use of effective surgical strategies to preserve patient quality of life (QoL). Traditional open posterior fusion (OPF) and percutaneous osteosynthesis (PO) are well-documented approaches, but their comparative efficacy remains debated. Methods: This retrospective study compared short-term outcomes (6-12 months) between OPF and PO in 78 cancer patients with spinal metastases. This comprehensive evaluation included functional, clinical, and radiographic parameters. Statistical analysis utilized PRISM software (version 10), with significance set at p < 0.05. Results: PO demonstrated advantages over OPF, including shorter surgical durations, reduced blood loss, and hospital stay, along with lower perioperative complication rates. Patient quality of life and functional outcomes favored PO, particularly at the 6-month mark. The mortality rates at one year were significantly lower in the PO group. Conclusions: Minimally invasive techniques offer promising benefits in VM management, optimizing patient outcomes and QoL. Despite limitations, this study advocates for the adoption of minimally invasive approaches to enhance the care of multi-metastatic patients with symptomatic VM.

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.

Positioning accuracy and facet joints violation after percutaneous pedicle screws placement with robot-assisted versus fluoroscopy-guided technique: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: Minimally invasive spine surgery became the gold standard for the treatment of many spinal diseases. Only a few comparative studies were performed regarding the superiority of robotic-assisted (RA) surgery over fluoroscopic guidance (FG) surgery during percutaneous pedicle screws placement. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to conduct a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy and potential advantages of RA compared with FG. Material and Methods: This study is a systematic literature review conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. The review questions were formulated following the PICO scheme. Measured outcomes were presented using Forest plots. Heterogeneity among the included studies was assessed using the χ2 test, and the I2 statistic was utilized to estimate the proportion of total variation among the studies. A value exceeding 50% was considered indicative of substantial heterogeneity. Results: Seven studies that met inclusion criteria were finally included in this meta-analysis. These seven studies include: 447 patients, 228 patients (931 screws) treated with robotic guide, and 219 patients (767 pedicle screws) using fluoroscopic guide, with a mean age of 55.2. The percentages of clinically acceptable screws were 94.3% in the robot-assisted group and 89% in the fluoroscopic guided group. The percentages of non-acceptable screws were 5.7% in the robot-assisted group and 11% in the fluoroscopic-guided group. Discussion: Significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of radiographic and clinical outcomes, with the robotic-assisted pedicle screw group exhibiting longer operative times. Robot technology serves as a valuable tool for assisting surgeons in challenging scenarios such as anatomical variants or patients with spinal deformities, ensuring accurate screw placement. Conclusion: The accuracy of pedicle screw placement with robotic technology is higher than with FG. In fact, the robotic approach allows significantly lower complication rates, fewer cases of violation of the proximal articular facet, less intraoperative exposure to radiation, even if it requires longer surgical times than the FG technique.

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.