Coccygectomy for refractory coccygodynia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: We sought to systematically assess and summarize the available literature on outcomes following coccygectomy for refractory coccygodynia. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Data concerning patient demographics, validated patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for pain relief, disability outcomes, complications, and reoperation rates were extracted and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 21 studies (18 retrospective and 3 prospective) were included in the quantitative analysis. A total of 826 patients (females = 75%) received coccygectomy (720 total and 106 partial) for refractory coccygodynia. Trauma was reported as the most common etiology of coccygodynia (56%; n = 375), followed by idiopathic causes (33%; n = 221). The pooled mean difference (MD) in pain scores from baseline on a 0-10 scale was 5.03 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.35 to 6.86) at a 6-12 month follow-up (FU); 5.02 (95% CI: 3.47 to 6.57) at > 12-36 months FU; and 5.41 (95% CI: 4.33 to 6.48) at > 36 months FU. The MCID threshold for pain relief was surpassed at each follow-up. Oswestry Disability Index scores significantly improved postoperatively, with a pooled MD from baseline of - 23.49 (95% CI: - 31.51 to - 15.46), surpassing the MCID threshold. The pooled incidence of complications following coccygectomy was 8% (95% CI: 5% to 12%), the most frequent of which were surgical site infections and wound dehiscence. The pooled incidence of reoperations was 3% (95% CI: 1% to 5%). CONCLUSION: Coccygectomy represents a viable treatment option in patients with refractory coccygodynia.

Spinal alignment and surgical correction in the aging spine and osteoporotic patient.

Background: The aging spine often presents multifaceted surgical challenges for the surgeon because it can directly and indirectly impact a patient's spinal alignment and quality of life. Elderly and osteoporotic patients are predisposed to progressive spinal deformities and potential neurologic compromise and surgical management can be difficult because these patients often present with greater frailty. Methods: This was a literature review of spinal alignment changes, preoperative considerations, and spinal alignment considerations for surgical strategies. Results: Many factors impact spinal alignment as we age including lumbar lordosis flexibility, hip flexion, deformity, and osteoporosis. Preoperative considerations are required to assess the patient's overall health, bone mineral density, and osteoporosis medications. Careful radiographic assessment of the spinopelvic parameters using various classification/scoring systems provide the surgeon with goals for surgical treatment. An individualized surgical strategy can be planned for the patient including extent of surgery, surgical approach, extent of the constructs, fixation techniques, vertebral augmentation, ligamentous augmentation, and staging surgery. Conclusions: Surgical treatment should only be considered after a thorough assessment of the patient's health, deformity, bone quality and corresponding age matched alignment goals. An individualized treatment approach is often required to tackle the deformity and minimize the risk of hardware related complications and pseudarthrosis. Anabolic agents offer a promising benefit in this patient population by directly addressing and improving their bone quality and mineral density preoperatively and postoperatively.

Clinical Outcomes of Coccygectomy for Coccydynia: A Single Institution Series With Mean 5-Year Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies of coccygectomy consist of small patient groups, heterogeneous techniques, and high wound complication rates (up to 22%). This study investigates our institution's experience with coccygectomy using a novel "off-center" wound closure technique and analyzes prognostic factors for long-term successful clinical outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective review of all patients who underwent coccygectomy from 2006 to 2019 at a single center. Demographics, mechanism of injury, conservative management, morphology (Postacchini and Massobrio), and postoperative complications were collected. Preoperative and postoperative Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale (VAS), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29 (PROMIS-29), and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) were compared. Risk factors for failing to meet minimum clinically importance difference for ODI and PROMIS-physical function/pain interference were identified. Risk factors for remaining disabled after surgery (ODI <20) and factors associated with VAS and EQ-5D improvement were investigated using stepwise logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 173 patients (77% women, mean age = 46.56 years, mean follow-up 5.58 ± 3.95 years). The most common etiologies of coccydynia were spontaneous/unknown (42.2%) and trauma/accident (41%). ODI, VAS, and several PROMIS-29 domains improved postoperatively. Older age predicted continued postoperative disability (ODI >20) and history of prior spine surgery, trauma etiology, and women had inferior outcomes. No history of spine surgery (cervical, thoracic, or lumbar) prior to coccygectomy was found to predict improved postoperative VAS back scores. No outcome differences were demonstrated among the coccyx morphologies. Sixteen patients (9.25%) were noted to have postoperative infections of the incision site with no difference in long-term outcomes (all P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest series of coccygectomy patients demonstrating improvement in long-term outcomes. Compared to previous studies, our cohort had a lower wound infection rate, which we attribute to an "off-center" closure. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Patients should be counseled that their surgical history, along with age, gender, and etiology of pain can influence success following coccygectomy. These data can help surgeons set realistic expectations following surgery.

Radiofrequency ablation for spinal osteoid osteoma: A systematic review of safety and treatment outcomes.

AIM: We sought to systematically assess and summarize the available literature on the clinical outcomes and complications following radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for painful spinal osteoid osteoma (OO). METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and CENTRAL databases were searched in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies with available data on safety and clinical outcomes following RFA for spinal OO were included. RESULTS: In the 14 included studies (11 retrospective; 3 prospective), 354 patients underwent RFA for spinal OO. The mean ages ranged from 16.4 to 28 years (Females = 31.3%). Lesion diameters ranged between 3 and 20 mm and were frequently seen in the posterior elements in 211/331 (64%) patients. The mean distance between OO lesions and neural elements ranged between 1.7 and 7.4 mm. The estimated pain reduction on the numerical rating scale was 6.85/10 (95% confidence intervals [95%CI] 4.67-9.04) at a 12-24-month follow-up; and 7.29/10 (95% CI 6.67-7.91) at a >24-month follow-up (range 24-55 months). Protective measures (e.g., epidural air insufflation or neuroprotective sterile water infusion) were used in 43/354 (12.1%) patients. Local tumor progression was seen in 23/354 (6.5%) patients who were then successfully re-treated with RFA or open surgical resection. Grade I-II complications such as temporary limb paresthesia and wound dehiscence were reported in 4/354 (1.1%) patients. No Grade III-V complications were reported. CONCLUSION: RFA demonstrated safety and clinical efficacy in most patients harboring painful spinal OO lesions. However, further prospective studies evaluating these outcomes are warranted.

The Five-item Modified Frailty Index is Predictive of 30-day Postoperative Complications in Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the utility of the modified frailty index (mFI-5) in a population of patients undergoing spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The original modified frailty index (mFI-11) published as an American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program 11-factor index was modified to mFI-5 after variables were removed from recent renditions. METHODS: Surgical spine patients were isolated using current procedural terminology codes. mFI-11 (11) and mFI-5 (5) were calculated from 2005 to 2012. mFI was determined by dividing the factors present by available factors. To assess correlation, Spearman rho was used. Predictive values of indices were generated by binary logistic regression. Patients were stratified into groups by mFI-5: not frail (NF, <0.3), mildly frail (MF, 0.3-0.5), severely frail (SF, >0.5). Means comparison tests analyzed frailty and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: After calculating the mFI-5 and the mFI-11, Spearman rho between the two indices was 0.926(P < 0.001). Each index established significant (all P < 0.001) predictive values for unplanned readmission (11 = odds ratio [OR]: 5.65 [2.92-10.94]; 5 = OR: 3.68 [1.85-2.32]), post-op complications (11 = OR: 8.56 [7.12-10.31]; 5 = OR: 13.32 [10.89-16.29]), and mortality (11 = OR: 41.29 [21.92-77.76]; 5 = OR: 114.82 [54.64-241.28]). Frailty categories by mFI-5 were: 83.2% NF, 15.2% MF, and 1.6% SF. From 2005 to 2016, rates of NF decreased (88.8% to 82.2%, P < 0.001), whereas MF increased (9.2% to 16.2%, P < 0.001), and SF remained constant (2% to 1.6%, P > 0.05). With increase in severity, postoperative rates of morbidities and complications increased. CONCLUSION: The five-factor National Surgical Quality Improvement Program modified frailty index is an effective predictor of postoperative events following spine surgery. Severity of frailty score by the mFI-5 was associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The mFI-5 within a surgical spine population can reliably predict post-op complications. This tool is less cumbersome than mFI-11 and relies on readily accessible variables at the time of surgical decision-making.Level of Evidence: 3.