CoccydyniaPhase 3NCT07060313
TARGETING DUAL PATHWAYS IN REFRACTORY COCCYDYNIA
A Phase 3 study testing Ganglion Impar Block and Ganglion Impar Block and Pericoccygeal Injection in people with Coccydynia, run by Istanbul University at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
Trial summary
This retrospective cohort study included 60 patients aged 18-65 years treated at a tertiary pain clinic between June 2022 and June 2024. Patients received either Ganglion Impar Block (GIB) alone or GIB combined with pericoccygeal injection in a single session under fluoroscopic guidance. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 65 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Coccydynia
- What is being tested?
- Ganglion Impar Block and Ganglion Impar Block and Pericoccygeal Injection
- Type of treatment
- Injection or infusion, Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 60 participants
- Where
- 1 siteTurkey (Türkiye)
- Study dates
- 1 Jun 2022to 2 Jun 2024
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 65 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- with a confirmed diagnosis of coccydynia persistent for at least 3 months as determined by history, clinical examination, and radiological imaging, who had undergone either GIB or GIB with pericoccygeal injection, and had complete medical records available for review between June 2022 and June 2024.
Who cannot join
- having a recent intervention (in the past 6 months), morbid obesity (BMI > 35 kg/m²), severe comorbidities, skin infections, bleeding disorders, pregnancy, or having incomplete records
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Turkey (Türkiye)1 site
Health Sciences University Istanbul Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Training and Research Hospital
Istanbul, 34303
About this study
Official title: TARGETING DUAL PATHWAYS IN REFRACTORY COCCYDYNIA: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF GANGLION IMPAR BLOCK ALONE VERSUS COMBINED WITH PERICOCCYGEAL INJECTION
This retrospective cohort study included 60 patients aged 18-65 years treated at a tertiary pain clinic between June 2022 and June 2024. Patients received either Ganglion Impar Block (GIB) alone or GIB combined with pericoccygeal injection in a single session under fluoroscopic guidance. Pain severity and functional outcomes were assessed using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Paris Functional Coccydynia Impact Questionnaire (PFCIQ) before the procedure and at 1 and 3 months post-intervention.
Read the detailed description
Study Design and Population This retrospective study compared the effects of GIB alone versus GIB combined with pericoccygeal injection in coccydynia patients treated at the Pain Clinic of Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Training and Research Hospital. The study cohort was drawn from patients with a confirmed diagnosis of coccydynia persistent for at least 3 months as determined by history, clinical examination, and radiological imaging, who had undergone either GIB or GIB with pericoccygeal injection, and had complete medical records available for review between June 2022 and June 2024. Patients having a recent intervention (in the past 6 months), morbid obesity (BMI > 35 kg/m²), severe comorbidities, skin infections, bleeding disorders, pregnancy, or having incomplete records were excluded. A total of 60 patients aged 18-65 years who underwent either GIB or GIB with pericoccygeal injection were included. The sample size was determined using a power analysis (effect size: 0.84, power: 80%, error margin: 5%), based on previously published studies reporting significant differences in pain and functional outcomes following ganglion impar block interventions. Accordingly, a minimum of 30 patients per group was required, and a total of 60 patients were enrolled.
Intervention A standard procedure was applied to all patients by the same pain medicine specialist with over 5 years of experience, in a sterile operating room under fluoroscopic guidance and monitored conditions. The patients underwent noninvasive blood pressure monitoring, pulse oximetry, and a five-lead electrocardiogram [ECG], and intravenous access was established in the forearm before positioning for the intervention. The position used during the intervention was the prone position, with a pillow placed under the belly. The procedure area was disinfected with povidone-iodine and covered with a sterile drape. Anterior-posterior (AP) imaging was first performed with a C-arm scopy device, which was then placed in the lateral position.
The ganglion impar was accessed with a Quincke spinal needle, transsacrococcygeally (from between the first and second coccygeal vertebrae if sacrococcygeal access could not be achieved). Then, 1 mL of non-ionic contrast medium was administered, and fluoroscopic anterior-posterior and lateral imaging was performed to confirm the appropriate spread of contrast. After this confirmation, 2 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine, 2 mL of saline, and 40 mg of methylprednisolone acetate were injected.
In the combination therapy group who underwent pericoccygeal injection in addition to impar block, following the same procedure, 5 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine and 20 mg of methylprednisolone were injected into the posterior pericoccygeal region while the needle was withdrawn, thus also targeting blockade of the anococcygeal nerve.
After the procedure, all patients were monitored and observed for at least two hours. Patients who had no additional complaints during follow-up visits were discharged.
Data Collection Data were extracted from patient files following ethical approval. Recorded information included demographic details (age, sex), body mass index (BMI), symptom duration, comorbidities, prior medical treatments, procedure details, coccydynia etiology, and outcome measures.
Outcome Measures Pain Assessment with the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11) Pain levels were measured using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11), a widely recognized tool for quantifying pain intensity. This scale ranges from 0 to 10, where 0 represents no pain and 10 signifies the worst imaginable pain. Patients were asked to rate their pain based on their subjective experience, providing a straightforward and reliable metric for assessing pain severity. The NRS-11 was administered before the procedure and at follow-up intervals of 1 and 3 months post-procedure to track changes in pain levels over time, allowing for a clear evaluation of the intervention's effectiveness in reducing pain.
Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) Functional disability was assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), a validated questionnaire designed to evaluate the impact of pain on daily functioning. The ODI consists of 10 domains-pain intensity, lifting, self-care, walking, sitting, sexual function, standing, social life, sleep quality, and travel-each scored on a 0-5 scale. The total score is expressed as a percentage (0-100%), with higher scores indicating greater disability. This comprehensive tool captures the multidimensional impact of pain on patients' lives . ODI scores were collected pre-procedure and at 1 and 3 months post-procedure to monitor improvements in functional capacity following the intervention.
The Paris Functional Coccydynia Impact Questionnaire (PFCIQ) To specifically address coccyx-related functional limitations, the Paris Functional Coccydynia Impact Questionnaire (PFCIQ) was employed. This targeted questionnaire evaluates the unique challenges associated with coccydynia, including difficulties with sitting, standing, or performing activities that exacerbate coccyx pain. The PFCIQ provides a detailed assessment of how coccyx-specific impairments affect patients' quality of life and daily activities. Like the other metrics, PFCIQ scores were recorded before the procedure and at 1 and 3 months post-procedure, enabling a focused evaluation of the intervention's impact on coccyx-related functional outcomes.
Ethical Considerations The study was approved by the institutional ethics committee of Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Training and Research Hospital on 26/09/2024 (ID: KAEK/2024.09.200). As it is a retrospective cohort study, no additional patient consent beyond routine clinical consent was required. Data collection occurred between October 1, 2024, and December 1, 2024.
- Conditions
- Coccydynia
- Being tested
- Ganglion Impar Block, Ganglion Impar Block and Pericoccygeal Injection
- Keywords
- Coccydynia, Spinal Injections, Pain Management
- Medical subject headings
- Agnosia
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Ganglion Impar BlockProcedure or surgery
The ganglion impar was accessed with a Quincke spinal needle, transsacrococcygeally (from between the first and second coccygeal vertebrae if sacrococcygeal access could not be achieved). Then, 1 mL of non-ionic contrast medium was administered, and fluoroscopic anterior-posterior and lateral imaging was performed to confirm the appropriate spread of contrast (Figure 1). After this confirmation, 2 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine, 2 mL of saline, and 40 mg of methylprednisolone acetate were injected.
Ganglion Impar Block and Pericoccygeal InjectionProcedure or surgery
In the combination therapy group who underwent pericoccygeal injection in addition to impar block, following the same procedure, 5 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine and 20 mg of methylprednisolone were injected into the posterior pericoccygeal region while the needle was withdrawn, thus also targeting blockade of the anococcygeal nerve.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Ganglion Impar Block Group | Active comparator | This group of participants received ganglion impar block only. Receives: Procedure: Ganglion Impar Block |
| Combination Therapy Group | Active comparator | This group of participants underwent pericoccygeal injection in addition to impar block. Receives: Procedure: Ganglion Impar Block and Pericoccygeal Injection |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Pain Assessment with Numeric Rating Scale 11
Pain levels were measured using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11), a widely recognized tool for quantifying pain intensity. This scale ranges from 0 to 10, where 0 represents no pain and 10 signifies the worst imaginable pain. Patients were asked to rate their pain based on their subjective experience, providing a straightforward and reliable metric for assessing pain severity. The NRS-11 was administered before the procedure and at follow-up intervals of 1 and 3 months post-procedure to track changes in pain levels over time, allowing for a clear evaluation of the intervention's effectiveness in reducing pain.
Measured: From the beginning of the treatment to the 3 month follow-up
Secondary outcomes (2)
Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)
Functional disability was assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), a validated questionnaire designed to evaluate the impact of pain on daily functioning. The ODI consists of 10 domains-pain intensity, lifting, self-care, walking, sitting, sexual function, standing, social life, sleep quality, and travel-each scored on a 0-5 scale. The total score is expressed as a percentage (0-100%), with higher scores indicating greater disability. This comprehensive tool captures the multidimensional impact of pain on patients' lives. ODI scores were collected pre-procedure and at 1 and 3 months post-procedure to monitor improvements in functional capacity following the intervention.
Measured: From the beginning of the treatment to the 3 month follow-up
The Paris Functional Coccydynia Impact Questionnaire (PFCIQ)
To specifically address coccyx-related functional limitations, the Paris Functional Coccydynia Impact Questionnaire (PFCIQ) was employed. This targeted questionnaire evaluates the unique challenges associated with coccydynia, including difficulties with sitting, standing, or performing activities that exacerbate coccyx pain. The PFCIQ provides a detailed assessment of how coccyx-specific impairments affect patients' quality of life and daily activities. Like the other metrics, PFCIQ scores were recorded before the procedure and at 1 and 3 months post-procedure, enabling a focused evaluation of the intervention's impact on coccyx-related functional outcomes.
Measured: From the beginning of the treatment to the 3 month follow-up
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted11 Jul 2025
- Study start1 Jun 2022
- Primary completion1 Jun 2024
- Study completion2 Jun 2024
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (2)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for CoccydyniaStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- A standard procedure was applied to all patients by the same pain medicine specialist with over 5 years of experience, in a sterile operating room under fluoroscopic guidance and monitored conditions. The patients underwent noninvasive blood pressure monitoring, pulse oximetry, and a five-lead electrocardiogram \[ECG\], and intravenous access was established in the forearm before positioning for the intervention. The position used during the intervention was the prone position, with a pillow placed under the belly. The procedure area was disinfected with povidone-iodine and covered with a sterile drape. Anterior-posterior (AP) imaging was first performed with a C-arm scopy device, which was then placed in the lateral position. The ganglion impar was accessed with a Quincke spinal needle, transsacrococcygeally (from between the first and second coccygeal vertebrae if sacrococcygeal access could not be achieved). Then, 1 mL of non-ionic contrast medium was administered, and fluoroscopic
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 60 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Istanbul University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Mert Zure, Saglik Bilimleri Universitesi
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07060313
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- Health Sciences University
- Status last verified
- Jul 2025
- First submitted
- 8 Jul 2025
- Last updated
- 11 Jul 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Publications
Genc Perdecioglu GR, Yildiz G. Coccygeal Nerve Blockade vs. Impar Ganglion Blockade in Coccydynia: A Randomised Clinical Trial. Cureus. 2024 Sep 10;16(9):e69118. doi: 10.7759/cureus.69118. eCollection 2024 Sep.
PubMed 39398734Sencan S, Yolcu G, Bilim S, Kenis-Coskun O, Gunduz OH. Comparison of treatment outcomes in chronic coccygodynia patients treated with ganglion impar blockade versus caudal epidural steroid injection: a prospective randomized comparison study. Korean J Pain. 2022 Jan 1;35(1):106-113. doi: 10.3344/kjp.2022.35.1.106.
PubMed 34966017
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 11 Jul 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- TARGETING DUAL PATHWAYS IN REFRACTORY COCCYDYNIA: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF GANGLION IMPAR BLOCK ALONE VERSUS COMBINED WITH PERICOCCYGEAL INJECTION
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07060313
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Health Sciences University
- Conditions
- Coccydynia
- Keywords
- Coccydynia, Spinal Injections, Pain Management
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 60 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Istanbul UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 1 Jun 2022 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 1 Jun 2024 (actual)
- Study completion
- 2 Jun 2024 (actual)
- First posted
- 11 Jul 2025 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This retrospective cohort study included 60 patients aged 18-65 years treated at a tertiary pain clinic between June 2022 and June 2024. Patients received either Ganglion Impar Block (GIB) alone or GIB combined with pericoccygeal injection in a single session under fluoroscopic guidance. Pain severity and functional outcomes were assessed using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and Paris Functional Coccydynia Impact Questionnaire (PFCIQ) before the procedure and at 1 and 3 months post-intervention.
Detailed description
Study Design and Population This retrospective study compared the effects of GIB alone versus GIB combined with pericoccygeal injection in coccydynia patients treated at the Pain Clinic of Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Training and Research Hospital. The study cohort was drawn from patients with a confirmed diagnosis of coccydynia persistent for at least 3 months as determined by history, clinical examination, and radiological imaging, who had undergone either GIB or GIB with pericoccygeal injection, and had complete medical records available for review between June 2022 and June 2024. Patients having a recent intervention (in the past 6 months), morbid obesity (BMI > 35 kg/m²), severe comorbidities, skin infections, bleeding disorders, pregnancy, or having incomplete records were excluded. A total of 60 patients aged 18-65 years who underwent either GIB or GIB with pericoccygeal injection were included. The sample size was determined using a power analysis (effect size: 0.84, power: 80%, error margin: 5%), based on previously published studies reporting significant differences in pain and functional outcomes following ganglion impar block interventions. Accordingly, a minimum of 30 patients per group was required, and a total of 60 patients were enrolled.
Intervention A standard procedure was applied to all patients by the same pain medicine specialist with over 5 years of experience, in a sterile operating room under fluoroscopic guidance and monitored conditions. The patients underwent noninvasive blood pressure monitoring, pulse oximetry, and a five-lead electrocardiogram [ECG], and intravenous access was established in the forearm before positioning for the intervention. The position used during the intervention was the prone position, with a pillow placed under the belly. The procedure area was disinfected with povidone-iodine and covered with a sterile drape. Anterior-posterior (AP) imaging was first performed with a C-arm scopy device, which was then placed in the lateral position.
The ganglion impar was accessed with a Quincke spinal needle, transsacrococcygeally (from between the first and second coccygeal vertebrae if sacrococcygeal access could not be achieved). Then, 1 mL of non-ionic contrast medium was administered, and fluoroscopic anterior-posterior and lateral imaging was performed to confirm the appropriate spread of contrast. After this confirmation, 2 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine, 2 mL of saline, and 40 mg of methylprednisolone acetate were injected.
In the combination therapy group who underwent pericoccygeal injection in addition to impar block, following the same procedure, 5 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine and 20 mg of methylprednisolone were injected into the posterior pericoccygeal region while the needle was withdrawn, thus also targeting blockade of the anococcygeal nerve.
After the procedure, all patients were monitored and observed for at least two hours. Patients who had no additional complaints during follow-up visits were discharged.
Data Collection Data were extracted from patient files following ethical approval. Recorded information included demographic details (age, sex), body mass index (BMI), symptom duration, comorbidities, prior medical treatments, procedure details, coccydynia etiology, and outcome measures.
Outcome Measures Pain Assessment with the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11) Pain levels were measured using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11), a widely recognized tool for quantifying pain intensity. This scale ranges from 0 to 10, where 0 represents no pain and 10 signifies the worst imaginable pain. Patients were asked to rate their pain based on their subjective experience, providing a straightforward and reliable metric for assessing pain severity. The NRS-11 was administered before the procedure and at follow-up intervals of 1 and 3 months post-procedure to track changes in pain levels over time, allowing for a clear evaluation of the intervention's effectiveness in reducing pain.
Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) Functional disability was assessed using the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), a validated questionnaire designed to evaluate the impact of pain on daily functioning. The ODI consists of 10 domains-pain intensity, lifting, self-care, walking, sitting, sexual function, standing, social life, sleep quality, and travel-each scored on a 0-5 scale. The total score is expressed as a percentage (0-100%), with higher scores indicating greater disability. This comprehensive tool captures the multidimensional impact of pain on patients' lives . ODI scores were collected pre-procedure and at 1 and 3 months post-procedure to monitor improvements in functional capacity following the intervention.
The Paris Functional Coccydynia Impact Questionnaire (PFCIQ) To specifically address coccyx-related functional limitations, the Paris Functional Coccydynia Impact Questionnaire (PFCIQ) was employed. This targeted questionnaire evaluates the unique challenges associated with coccydynia, including difficulties with sitting, standing, or performing activities that exacerbate coccyx pain. The PFCIQ provides a detailed assessment of how coccyx-specific impairments affect patients' quality of life and daily activities. Like the other metrics, PFCIQ scores were recorded before the procedure and at 1 and 3 months post-procedure, enabling a focused evaluation of the intervention's impact on coccyx-related functional outcomes.
Ethical Considerations The study was approved by the institutional ethics committee of Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Training and Research Hospital on 26/09/2024 (ID: KAEK/2024.09.200). As it is a retrospective cohort study, no additional patient consent beyond routine clinical consent was required. Data collection occurred between October 1, 2024, and December 1, 2024.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
- Model description
- A standard procedure was applied to all patients by the same pain medicine specialist with over 5 years of experience, in a sterile operating room under fluoroscopic guidance and monitored conditions. The patients underwent noninvasive blood pressure monitoring, pulse oximetry, and a five-lead electrocardiogram [ECG], and intravenous access was established in the forearm before positioning for the intervention. The position used during the intervention was the prone position, with a pillow placed under the belly. The procedure area was disinfected with povidone-iodine and covered with a sterile drape. Anterior-posterior (AP) imaging was first performed with a C-arm scopy device, which was then placed in the lateral position. The ganglion impar was accessed with a Quincke spinal needle, transsacrococcygeally (from between the first and second coccygeal vertebrae if sacrococcygeal access could not be achieved). Then, 1 mL of non-ionic contrast medium was administered, and fluoroscopic
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Ganglion Impar Block Group | Active comparator | Procedure: Ganglion Impar BlockThis group of participants received ganglion impar block only. |
| Combination Therapy Group | Active comparator | Procedure: Ganglion Impar Block and Pericoccygeal InjectionThis group of participants underwent pericoccygeal injection in addition to impar block. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 65 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- with a confirmed diagnosis of coccydynia persistent for at least 3 months as determined by history, clinical examination, and radiological imaging, who had undergone either GIB or GIB with pericoccygeal injection, and had complete medical records available for review between June 2022 and June 2024.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- having a recent intervention (in the past 6 months), morbid obesity (BMI > 35 kg/m²), severe comorbidities, skin infections, bleeding disorders, pregnancy, or having incomplete records
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Ganglion Impar BlockThe ganglion impar was accessed with a Quincke spinal needle, transsacrococcygeally (from between the first and second coccygeal vertebrae if sacrococcygeal access could not be achieved). Then, 1 mL of non-ionic contrast medium was administered, and fluoroscopic anterior-posterior and lateral imaging was performed to confirm the appropriate spread of contrast (Figure 1). After this confirmation, 2 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine, 2 mL of saline, and 40 mg of methylprednisolone acetate were injected. | Procedure or surgery | Ganglion Impar Block Group |
| Ganglion Impar Block and Pericoccygeal InjectionIn the combination therapy group who underwent pericoccygeal injection in addition to impar block, following the same procedure, 5 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine and 20 mg of methylprednisolone were injected into the posterior pericoccygeal region while the needle was withdrawn, thus also targeting blockade of the anococcygeal nerve. | Procedure or surgery | Combination Therapy Group |
Primary outcome
Pain Assessment with Numeric Rating Scale 11
Time frame: From the beginning of the treatment to the 3 month follow-up
Pain levels were measured using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11), a widely recognized tool for quantifying pain intensity. This scale ranges from 0 to 10, where 0 represents no pain and 10 signifies the worst imaginable pain. Patients were asked to rate their pain based on their subjective experience, providing a straightforward and reliable metric for assessing pain severity. The NRS-11 was administered before the procedure and at follow-up intervals of 1 and 3 months post-procedure to track changes in pain levels over time, allowing for a clear evaluation of the intervention's effectiveness in reducing pain.
2 secondary outcomes
Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)
Time frame: From the beginning of the treatment to the 3 month follow-up
The Paris Functional Coccydynia Impact Questionnaire (PFCIQ)
Time frame: From the beginning of the treatment to the 3 month follow-up
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 11 Jul 2025.
- Background: PubMed 39398734Genc Perdecioglu GR, Yildiz G. Coccygeal Nerve Blockade vs. Impar Ganglion Blockade in Coccydynia: A Randomised Clinical Trial. Cureus. 2024 Sep 10;16(9):e69118. doi: 10.7759/cureus.69118. eCollection 2024 Sep.
- Background: PubMed 34966017Sencan S, Yolcu G, Bilim S, Kenis-Coskun O, Gunduz OH. Comparison of treatment outcomes in chronic coccygodynia patients treated with ganglion impar blockade versus caudal epidural steroid injection: a prospective randomized comparison study. Korean J Pain. 2022 Jan 1;35(1):106-113. doi: 10.3344/kjp.2022.35.1.106.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for Coccydynia
RecruitingPhase 3
Study Evaluating the Analgesic Efficacy of Capsaicin 8% Patches in Chronic Coccygodynia.
Coccyx Disorder, Neuropathic Pain
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Alexithymia, Pain Intensity, Quality of Life, and Psychological Symptoms in Chronic Coccydynia Patients Scheduled for Ganglion Impar Block
Coccydynia, Chronic Pain
RecruitingObservational study
Evaluation of Alexithymia and Its Relationship With Clinical Parameters in Patients With Chronic Coccydynia
Chronic Coccydynia, Alexithymia
Recruiting
Comparison of Single- and Double-Level Radiofrequency Ablation for Chronic Coccydynia
Chronic Coccydynia
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Pelvic Floor Muscles Down Training on Postpartum Coccydynia
Tailbone Disorders
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 3 study testing Ganglion Impar Block and Ganglion Impar Block and Pericoccygeal Injection in people with Coccydynia, run by Istanbul University at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 11 Jul 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye). Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 3 studies compare the treatment with the current standard treatment or a placebo in a large group, to confirm how well it works and watch for side effects.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Pain Assessment with Numeric Rating Scale 11 (time frame: From the beginning of the treatment to the 3 month follow-up). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07060313, which also lists 2 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 11 Jul 2025.