One spinal manipulation session reduces local pain sensitivity but does not affect postural stability in individuals with chronic low back pain: a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines recommend spinal manipulation for patients with low back pain. However, the effects of spinal manipulation have contradictory findings compared to placebo intervention. Therefore, this study investigated the immediate effects of lumbar spinal manipulation on pressure pain threshold (PPT) and postural stability in people with chronic low back pain (cLBP). Second, we investigated the immediate effect of lumbar spinal manipulation on pain intensity and the interference of the participant beliefs about which treatment was received in the PPT, postural stability, and pain intensity. METHODS: A two-arm, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial was performed. Eighty participants with nonspecific cLPB and a minimum score of 3 on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale received one session of lumbar spinal manipulation (n = 40) or simulated lumbar spinal manipulation (n = 40). Primary outcomes were local and remote PPTs and postural stability. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity and participant's perceived treatment allocation. Between-group mean differences and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) estimated the treatment effect. One-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed to assess whether beliefs about which treatment was received influenced the outcomes. RESULTS: Participants had a mean (SD) age of 34.9 (10.5) years, and 50 (62.5%) were women. Right L5 [between-group mean difference = 0.55 (95%CI 0.19 to 0.90)], left L5 [between-group mean difference = 0.45 (95%CI 0.13 to 0.76)], right L1 [between-group mean difference = 0.41 (95%CI 0.05 to 0.78)], left L1 [between-group mean difference = 0.57 (95%CI 0.15 to 0.99)], left DT [between-group mean difference = 0.35 (95%CI 0.04 to 0.65)], and right LE [between-group mean difference = 0.34 (95%CI 0.08 to 0.60)] showed superior treatment effect in the spinal manipulation group than sham. Neither intervention altered postural stability. Self-reported pain intensity showed clinically significant decreases in both groups after the intervention. A higher proportion of participants in the spinal manipulation group achieved more than two points of pain relief (spinal manipulation = 90%; sham = 60%). The participants' perceived treatment allocation did not affect the outcomes. CONCLUSION: One spinal manipulation session reduces lumbar pain sensitivity but does not affect postural stability compared to a sham session in individuals with cLPB. Self-reported pain intensity lowered in both groups and a higher proportion of participants in the spinal manipulation group reached clinically significant pain relief. The participant's belief in receiving the manipulation did not appear to have influenced the outcomes since the adjusted model revealed similar findings.

Effectiveness of a pain neuroscience education programme on the physical activity of patients with chronic low back pain compared with a standard back school programme: protocol for a randomised controlled study (END-LC).

INTRODUCTION: Education is recognised as an effective and necessary approach in chronic low back pain. Nevertheless, data regarding the effectiveness of education in promoting physical activity in the medium term or long term are still limited, as are the factors that could lead to successful outcomes. Our study aims to assess the effectiveness of a pain neuroscience education programme compared with traditional back school on physical activity 3 months and 1 year after educational sessions coupled with a multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme. Additionally, we seek to evaluate the effects of these educational interventions on various factors, including pain intensity and psychobehavioural factors. Finally, our goal is to identify the determinants of success in educational sessions combined with the rehabilitation programme. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study will involve 82 adults with chronic low back pain. It will be a monocentric, open, controlled, randomised, superiority trial with two parallel arms: an experimental group, 'pain neuroscience education', and a control group, 'back school'. The primary outcome is the average number of steps taken at home over a week, measured by an actigraph. Secondary outcomes include behavioural assessments. Descriptive and inferential analysis will be conducted. Multivariate modelling will be performed using actimetric data and data from the primary and secondary outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Committee for Personal Protection of Ile de France VII (CPP) gave a favourable opinion on 22 June 2023 (National number: 2023-A00346-39). The study was previously registered with the National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (IDRCB: 2023-A00346-39). Participants signed an informed consent during the inclusion visit. This protocol is the version submitted to the CPP entitled 'Protocol Version N°1 of 03/29/2023'. The results of the study will be presented nationally and internationally through conferences and publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05840302.

Effectiveness of in-group versus individually administered pain neuroscience education on clinical and psychosocial outcomes in patients with chronic low back pain: randomized controlled study protocol.

Objective: (1) This trial will compare the clinical and psychosocial effectiveness of in-group and individually pain neuroscience education (PNE) in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP). In addition, (2) the influence of social determinants of health on post-treatment results will be analyzed. Methods: A three-arm randomized controlled trial will be conducted. Sixty-nine participants with CLBP will be recruited in a 1:1:1 ratio. Participants, assessor, and statistician will be blinded to group assignment. The PNE intervention will be adapted to the context of the participants. An experimental group (n = 33) will receive PNE in an in-group modality, the other experimental group (n = 33) will receive PNE in an individually modality and the control group (n = 33) will continue with usual care. Additionally, participants will be encouraged to stay active by walking for 20-30 min 3-5 times per week and will be taught an exercise to improve transversus abdominis activation (bracing or abdominal following). The outcome measures will be fear avoidance and beliefs, pressure pain threshold, pain self-efficacy, catastrophizing, pain intensity, and treatment expectation. Outcome measures will be collected at one-week before intervention, immediately post-intervention, and four-weeks post-intervention. Conclusion: The innovative approach of PNE oriented to fear beliefs proposed in this study could broaden the application strategies of this educational therapeutic modality. Impact. Contextualized PNE delivered by physical therapist could be essential to achieve a good cost-effectiveness ratio of this intervention to improve the clinical condition of people with CLBP.

Pay-for-performance and low back pain with interaction of overwork: findings from the cross-sectional Korean working conditions survey.

Background: Pay-for-performance (PFP) is a type of incentive system where employees receive monetary rewards for meeting predefined standards. While previous research has investigated the relationship between PFP and health outcomes, the focus has primarily been on mental health. Few studies have explored the impact of PFP on specific physical symptoms like pain. Methods: Data from the Korean Working Conditions Survey (KWCS) was analyzed, encompassing 20,815 subjects with information on PFP and low back pain (LBP). The associations between types of base pay (BP) and PFP with LBP were examined using multivariate logistic regression models, taking into account a directed acyclic graph (DAG). The interaction of overtime work was further explored using stratified logistic regression models and the relative excess risk for interaction. Results: The odds ratio (OR) for individuals receiving both BP and PFP was statistically significant at 1.19 (95% CI 1.04-1.35) compared to those with BP only. However, when the DAG approach was applied and necessary correction variables were adjusted, the statistical significance indicating a relationship between PFP and LBP vanished. In scenarios without PFP and with overtime work, the OR related to LBP was significant at 1.54 (95% CI 1.35-1.75). With the presence of PFP, the OR increased to 2.02 (95% CI 1.66-2.45). Conclusion: Pay-for-performance may influence not just psychological symptoms but also LBP in workers, particularly in conjunction with overtime work. The impact of management practices related to overtime work on health outcomes warrants further emphasis in research.

Basivertebral Nerve Radiofrequency Ablation (Intracept): Procedural Technique.

Intraosseous basivertebral nerve ablation is indicated for the treatment of chronic vertebrogenic low back pain with failure of at least 6 months of conservative treatment. This article details patient positioning and setup, step-by-step instructions for the procedure, and postoperative management. Pearls and pitfalls are also discussed. In addition, an instructional procedure video accompanies this paper and can be found online (at https://vimeo.com/791578426/de0e90cfbe).

Validación de test de flexión-relajación para definir un déficit lumbar con electrodos tetrapolares / Validation of the flexion-relaxation test to define a lumbar deficit with tetrapolar electrodes

Introducción y objetivo: Obtener un nuevo punto de corte (PC) para un test de flexión-relajación (FR) lumbar efectuado con electrodos (e.) tetrapolares, desde valores ya definidos con dispositivos bipolares.Materiales y métodosLa muestra del estudio consta de 47 pacientes en situación de incapacidad temporal por dolor lumbar (DL). Fueron evaluados mediante un test de dinamometría isométrica, una prueba cinemática y una valoración del fenómeno FR.Se plantean dos experimentos con curvas ROC. El primero, con 47 pacientes que efectuaron de modo consecutivo el test FR con ambos tipos de electrodos, utilizándose como variable de clasificación el punto de corte conocido para los e. bipolares (2,49uV). En el segundo, con los datos de la EMGs registrados con e. tetrapolares en 17 pacientes, se efectúa un test de DeLong que compara las 2 curvas ROC que construimos, por un lado, al clasificar la muestra desde pruebas de dinamometría y cinemática, y por el otro, al clasificarlos con los valores de la EMGs bipolar.ResultadosUn total de 34 pacientes completaron adecuadamente las valoraciones del primer experimento y 17 pacientes el segundo. El primer estudio arroja un punto de corte de 1,2uV, con un AUC del 87,7%; sensibilidad 84,2% y especificidad 80%. El segundo muestra un PC para los e. bipolares de 1,21uV (AUC 87,5%) y para los e. tetrapolares de 1,43 (AUC 82,5%) con un test de DeLong sin diferencias significativas entre ambas curvas (p>0,4065).ConclusionesLa metodología de validación con curvas ROC ha permitido obtener un nuevo PC para la prueba FR de modo práctico, simplemente simultaneando ambos test sobre el mismo grupo de pacientes hasta obtener una muestra significativa. (AU)

Introduction and objective: To obtain a new cut-off point (CP) for a lumbar flexion-relaxation (RF) test established with tetrapolar (e.) electrodes, from values already defined with bipolar devices.Materials and methodsThe study sample consists of 47 patients in a situation of temporary disability due to low back pain (DL). They were evaluated by means of an isometric dynamometry test, a kinematic test and an assessment of the FR phenomenon.Two experiments with ROC curves are proposed. The first, with 47 patients who consecutively performed the RF test with both types of electrodes, using the cut-off point (CP) known for the e. bipolar (2.49μV). In the second, with the EMG data recorded with e. tetrapolar in 17 patients, a DeLong test was performed that compares the 2 ROC curves that were constructed on the one hand, by classifying the sample from dynamometry and kinematic tests, and on the other, by classifying them with the bipolar EMG values.ResultsA total of 34 patients adequately completed the evaluations of the first experiment and 17 patients the second. The first study shows a cut-off point of 1.2μV, with an AUC of 87.7%; Sensitivity 84.2% and Specificity 80%. The second shows a PC for e. bipolars of 1.21μV (AUC 87.5%) and for e. tetrapolar values of 1.43 (AUC 82.5%) with a DeLong test without significant differences between both curves (p>0.4065).ConclusionsThe validation methodology with ROC curves has made it possible to obtain a new PC for the RF test in a practical way, simply by simultaneously performing both tests on the same group of patients until a significant sample is obtained. (AU)

Pain control and functional recovery as therapeutic goals in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: two experiences with tapentadol hydrochloride.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate pain control, functioning, and quality of life (QoL) recovery in patients with chronic low back pain (cLBP) or post-traumatic osteoarthritis (OA) pain in the ankle/foot area, treated with tapentadol prolonged release and unresponsive to other treatments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two observational retrospective studies were conducted using clinical practice datasets of patients with chronic pain in cLBP and OA foot/ankle at different time points (total follow-up=60-90 days). The studies assessed pain intensity by the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain scale (patients were classified as responder in case of ≥30% pain reduction), QoL by the 5-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire, patient satisfaction by the 7-point Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale; cLBP health status by the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ); foot and ankle functional status by European Foot and Ankle Society (EFAS) score; and treatment-related AEs. RESULTS: For the cLBP setting, 37 patients were enrolled, of which 86.50% were classified as responders (n=32; CI: 75.5% ÷ 97.5%). For the foot/ankle OA pain setting, 21 patients were enrolled. Pain assessment at final follow-up was available only for 11 patients, of which 72.73% (n=8; CI: 39.0% ÷ 94.0%) were classified as responders. Statistically significant improvements were seen in the RMDQ, EQ-5D-5L, and PGIC scores in cLBP. Improvements in the EFAS, EQ-5D-5L, and PGIC scores were seen in OA as well. The incidence of treatment-related adverse reactions was low in both studies. CONCLUSIONS: In the study population, tapentadol prolonged release was effective and well tolerated in treating cLBP and post-traumatic foot/ankle OA chronic pain when used in a multimodal manner. The reduction in pain was accompanied by clinically relevant improvements in patients' functionality and QoL.

Rehabilitation of back pain in the pediatric population: a mixed studies systematic review.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of children and adolescents experience back pain. However, a comprehensive systematic review on the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate benefits and harms of rehabilitation interventions for non-specific low back pain (LBP) or thoracic spine pain in the pediatric population. METHODS: Seven bibliographic electronic databases were searched from inception to June 16, 2023. Moreover, reference lists of relevant studies and systematic reviews, three targeted websites, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched. Paired reviewers independently conducted screening, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data related to study characteristics, methodology, subjects, and results. Certainty of evidence was evaluated based on the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We screened 8461 citations and 307 full-text articles. Ten quantitative studies (i.e., 8 RCTs, 2 non-randomized clinical trials) and one qualitative study were included. With very low to moderate certainty evidence, in adolescents with LBP, spinal manipulation (1-2 sessions/week over 12 weeks, 1 RCT) plus exercise may be associated with a greater likelihood of experiencing clinically important pain reduction versus exercise alone; and group-based exercise over 8 weeks (2 RCTs and 1 non-randomized trial) may reduce pain intensity. The qualitative study found information provided via education/advice and compliance of treatment were related to effective treatment. No economic studies or studies examining thoracic spine pain were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Spinal manipulation and group-based exercise may be beneficial in reducing LBP intensity in adolescents. Education should be provided as part of a care program. The overall evidence is sparse. Methodologically rigorous studies are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42019135009 (PROSPERO).

Extravertebral low back pain: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain (LBP) is one of the most common reasons for consultation in general practice. Currently, LBP is categorised into specific and non-specific causes. However, extravertebral causes, such as abdominal aortic aneurysm or pancreatitis, are not being considered. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed across MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane library, complemented by a handsearch. Studies conducted between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2020, where LBP was the main symptom, were included. RESULTS: The literature search identified 6040 studies, from which duplicates were removed, leaving 4105 studies for title and abstract screening. Subsequently, 265 publications were selected for inclusion, with an additional 197 publications identified through the handsearch. The majority of the studies were case reports and case series, predominantly originating from specialised care settings. A clear distinction between vertebral or rare causes of LBP was not always possible. A range of diseases were identified as potential extravertebral causes of LBP, encompassing gynaecological, urological, vascular, systemic, and gastrointestinal diseases. Notably, guidelines exhibited inconsistencies in addressing extravertebral causes. DISCUSSION: Prior to this review, there has been no systematic investigation into extravertebral causes of LBP. Although these causes are rare, the absence of robust and reliable epidemiological data hinders a comprehensive understanding, as well as the lack of standardised protocols, which contributes to a lack of accurate description of indicative symptoms. While there are certain disease-specific characteristics, such as non-mechanical or cyclical LBP, and atypical accompanying symptoms like fever, abdominal pain, or leg swelling, that may suggest extravertebral causes, it is important to recognise that these features are not universally present in every patient. CONCLUSION: The differential diagnosis of extravertebral LBP is extensive with relatively low prevalence rates dependent on the clinical setting. Clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for extravertebral aetiologies, especially in patients presenting with atypical accompanying symptoms.

Chiropractic spinal manipulation and likelihood of tramadol prescription in adults with radicular low back pain: a retrospective cohort study using US data.

OBJECTIVES: Patients receiving chiropractic spinal manipulation (CSM) for low back pain (LBP) are less likely to receive any opioid prescription for subsequent pain management. However, the likelihood of specifically being prescribed tramadol, a less potent opioid, has not been explored. We hypothesised that adults receiving CSM for newly diagnosed radicular LBP would be less likely to receive a tramadol prescription over 1-year follow-up, compared with those receiving usual medical care. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: US medical records-based dataset including >115 million patients attending academic health centres (TriNetX, Inc), queried 9 November 2023. PARTICIPANTS: Opioid-naive adults aged 18-50 with a new diagnosis of radicular LBP were included. Patients with serious pathology and tramadol use contraindications were excluded. Variables associated with tramadol prescription were controlled via propensity matching. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were divided into two cohorts dependent on treatment received on the index date of radicular LBP diagnosis (CSM or usual medical care). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Risk ratio (RR) for tramadol prescription (primary); markers of usual medical care utilisation (secondary). RESULTS: After propensity matching, there were 1171 patients per cohort (mean age 35 years). Tramadol prescription was significantly lower in the CSM cohort compared with the usual medical care cohort, with an RR (95% CI) of 0.32 (0.18 to 0.57; p<0.0001). A cumulative incidence graph demonstrated that the reduced incidence of tramadol prescription in the CSM cohort relative to the usual medical care cohort was maintained throughout 1-year follow-up. Utilisation of NSAIDs, physical therapy evaluation and lumbar imaging was similar between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that US adults initially receiving CSM for radicular LBP had a reduced likelihood of receiving a tramadol prescription over 1-year follow-up. These findings should be corroborated by a prospective study to minimise residual confounding.

Bacterial growth in patients with low back pain and Modic changes: protocol of a multicentre, case-control biopsy study.

INTRODUCTION: Bacterial infection and Modic changes (MCs) as causes of low back pain (LBP) are debated. Results diverged between two randomised controlled trials examining the effect of amoxicillin with and without clavulanic acid versus placebo on patients with chronic LBP (cLBP) and MCs. Previous biopsy studies have been criticised with regard to methods, few patients and controls, and insufficient measures to minimise perioperative contamination. In this study, we minimise contamination risk, include a control group and optimise statistical power. The main aim is to compare bacterial growth between patients with and without MCs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multicentre, case-control study examines disc and vertebral body biopsies of patients with cLBP. Cases have MCs at the level of tissue sampling, controls do not. Previously operated patients are included as a subgroup. Tissue is sampled before antibiotic prophylaxis with separate instruments. We will apply microbiological methods and histology on biopsies, and predefine criteria for significant bacterial growth, possible contamination and no growth. Microbiologists, surgeons and pathologist are blinded to allocation of case or control. Primary analysis assesses significant growth in MC1 versus controls and MC2 versus controls separately. Bacterial disc growth in previously operated patients, patients with large MCs and growth from the vertebral body in the fusion group are all considered exploratory analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics in Norway (REC South East, reference number 2015/697) has approved the study. Study participation requires written informed consent. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03406624). Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, scientific conferences and patient fora. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03406624.

Pelvic floor symptoms and symptom-related quality of life in the mothers of children with cerebral palsy: a pilot cross-sectional study.

Pelvic floor symptoms may occur in women with low back pain due to dysfunction of the spinal stabilization muscles. Low back pain is the most common musculoskeletal problem experienced by the mothers of children with cerebral palsy (CP). Therefore, our aim in this study was to examine pelvic floor symptoms and symptom-related quality of life in the mothers of children with CP. The study included 48 mothers of children with CP (n = 23) or without neurodevelopmental problems (n = 25). The mothers' pelvic floor symptoms and symptom-related quality of life were evaluated with the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20) and the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 (PFIQ-7). PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 scores did not differ between the two groups of mothers (p > .05). Additionally, moderately significant positive correlations were found between the age of the child with CP and duration of carrying and the PFDI-20 (r = 0.419, p = .047) and PFIQ-7 (r = 0.427, p = .042) scores. Pelvic floor symptoms and symptom-related quality of life in the mothers of children with CP were similar to those in the mothers of children without neurodevelopmental problems. As the age of the child with CP and duration of carrying increase, the urinary symptoms and urinary and colorectoanal symptoms-related quality of life in their mothers may worsen.

Effects of hand-press pellet on pain and daily life of elders with chronic lower back pain: randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: For elderly people with chronic lower back pain who need long-term management, there is a need for a nursing intervention study that is effective, is easy to perform, and applies complementary and alternative therapies to manage pain without repulsion. Hand pressure therapy is a treatment indigenous to Korea used to reduce pain and improve functions of daily life by applying acupuncture, pressure sticks, and moxibustion to parts of the hand as they relate to parts of the body. This research is to identify the effects of pellet pressed on the hand on pain and the daily lives of elders with chronic lower back pain (CLBP). METHODS: The hand pressed-pellet intervention period was six weeks long. Twenty-seven patients in the intervention group and twenty-four patients in the placebo control group were recruited from elderly over sixty-five who used welfare centers. In the intervention group, hand pressed-pellet therapy was conducted in eleven acupressure response zones related to CLBP, and the placebo control group was provided with similar therapy and zones, but unrelated to CLBP. The research tool measured the intensity of CLBP using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the Korean Owestry Disability Index (K-ODI), which are subjective indicators, and the Compact Digital Algometer, which is an objective indicator. RESULT: The pain intensity (VAS) measured after six weeks of hand pressed-pellet therapy showed significant difference between the two groups compared to their pain before the experiment (F = 60.522, p < .001). There was a significant difference between the two groups in the pain pressure threshold using pressure statistics (F = 8.940, p < .001), and in CLBP dysfunction evaluation index (K-ODI) after applying pressed pellet to the hand (Z = - 3.540, p < .001). CONCLUSION: Subjective indicators were measured to verify the effect of hand pressed-pellet therapy on CLBP, and the result confirmed that the hand pressed-pellet therapy was effective in alleviating CLBP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered retrospectively with reference number KCT0008024 on 23/12/2022.

Disability reduction following a lumbar stabilization exercise program for low back pain: large vs. small improvement subgroup analyses of physical and psychological variables.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about why patients with low back pain (LBP) respond differently to treatment, and more specifically, to a lumbar stabilization exercise program. As a first step toward answering this question, the present study evaluates how subgroups of patients who demonstrate large and small clinical improvements differ in terms of physical and psychological changes during treatment. METHODS: Participants (n = 110) performed the exercise program (clinical sessions and home exercises) over eight weeks, with 100 retained at six-month follow-up. Physical measures (lumbar segmental instability, motor control impairments, range of motion, trunk muscle endurance and physical performance tests) were collected twice (baseline, end of treatment), while psychological measures (fear-avoidance beliefs, pain catastrophizing, psychological distress, illness perceptions, outcome expectations) were collected at four time points (baseline, mid-treatment, end of treatment, follow-up). The participants were divided into three subgroups (large, moderate and small clinical improvements) based on the change of perceived disability scores. ANOVA for repeated measure compared well-contrasted subgroups (large vs. small improvement) at different times to test for SUBGROUP × TIME interactions. RESULTS: Statistically significant interactions were observed for several physical and psychological measures. In all these interactions, the large- and small-improvement subgroups were equivalent at baseline, but the large-improvement subgroup showed more improvements over time compared to the small-improvement subgroup. For psychological measures only (fear-avoidance beliefs, pain catastrophizing, illness perceptions), between-group differences reached moderate to strong effect sizes, at the end of treatment and follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The large-improvement subgroup showed more improvement than the small-improvement subgroup with regard to physical factors typically targeted by this specific exercise program as well as for psychological factors that are known to influence clinical outcomes.

Coccydynia: A Review of Anatomy, Causes, Diagnosis, and Treatment.

¼ Coccydynia is a painful condition affecting many patients at the terminal caudal end of the spine.¼ An understanding of coccyx anatomy and variations of morphology is necessary for proper diagnosis. A multifactorial etiology for pain may be responsible for this clinical entity.¼ Several treatment options exist. Successful outcomes for patients depend on individual patient characteristics and the etiology of pain.