Clinical Study On The Treatment Of Lumbar Muscle Strain By Lin’s Bonesetting

Objective:The research aims at observing the clinical effect of treating lumbar muscle strain by Lin’s bonesetting,compared with traditional Chinese massage,which takes for a control group.VAS scores,Oswestry Dysfunction Index Questionnaire,spine activity score and clinical signs score scale were used as observation indicators to explore the efficacy and differences between the two groups.By analyzing and discussing the characteristics and advantages of Lin’s bonesetting,more theoretical and clinical evidence are provided for clinical application.Methods:The 60 patients who participated in the trial met the inclusion and exclusion criteria.The patients were randomly divided into a treatment group and a control group,with 30 people in each,using the SPSS software to obtain the random coding method.The treatment group used the Lin’s bonesetting,and the control group used the traditional Chinese massage.Both the treatment group and the control group were treated once every 2 days about 3 times a week,and the treatment limit was 2 weeks for all patients.The main observation indicators of this study are:Oswestry Dysfunction Index Questionnaire,Visual Analogue Scoring(VAS),Spinal Activity Score,and Clinical Signs Score Scale.Observation were carried on before the first treatment,immediately after the first treatment,after the third treatment,before the fourth treatment,after the end of the treatment cycle,and 1 month after the end.Results:(1)A total of 60 cases were collected clinically,30 in the treatment group and 30 in the control group(2)Comparison of general information such as gender,age,course of disease between the treatment group and the control group before treatment(P>0.05),which indicates that it was comparable the difference is statistically meaningless.(3)In immediate clinical effect comparison,Lin’s bonesetting in immediate analgesia and improving the lumbar activity of lumbar muscle strain is better in effect and faster in onset.VAS scores and spine activity score in the treatment group,within the group(P<0.05),between groups(P<0.05).(4)In mid-term clinical effect comparison,traditional Chinese massage in mid-term analgesia of lumbar muscle strain is better in effect.VAS scores within the group(P<0.05),in the treatment between groups(P<0.05)(5)In the comparison of overall clinical effect,Lin’s bonesetting in overall effect of lumbar muscle strain is better in effect.ODI,VAS,spine activity score,and clinical signs score scale,within two groups(P<0.05),between the two groups(P<0.05).spine activity score,within two groups(P<0.05),between the two groups(P>0.05).(6)In the comparison of total effective rate,when after the treatment,the total effective rate of the treatment group is 100%,and the control group is 90%,P<0.05,suggesting that the difference is statistically significant,and the treatment group is better than the control group in clinical effect.(7)In Long-term clinical effect comparison,using the simplified Oswestry Dysfunction Index to follow up the patients on the scale a month later,no recurrence was found in both groups.Lin’s bonesetting in Long-term effect of lumbar muscle strain is better in effect.Within two groups(P<0.05),between the two groups(P>0.05).Conclusion:Lin’s bonesetting for the treatment of lumbar muscle strain has the effects of immediate analgesia and improvement of waist mobility;Lin’s bonesetting for the treatment of lumbar muscle strain is unstable in the mid-term analgesic effect;Lin’s bonesetting has the effect of treating lumbar muscle strain,and has a long-term curative effect.