The Clinical Effect Of Buyang Huanwu Decoction Combined With Traditional Chinese Medicine Fumigation On Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis(Qi Deficiency And Blood Stasis Type)

Objective Buyang Huanwu Decoction and fumigation were used in the treatment of mild to moderate degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis(Qi deficiency and blood stasis type)at the same time.The mechanism and short-term curative effect were analyzed and discussed,so as to provide reference for TCM research of lumbar spinal stenosis and conservative treatment by clinicians.Methods According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria of this study,all the cases were selected from the orthopedic outpatients of huayuanshan District of Hubei Provincial Hospital of traditional Chinese medicine from September 2018 to September 2019,and 40 cases of DLSS patients were selected to meet the requirements of this study.The average age of the patients was(65.43 1 ± 41)years old.The patients were divided into two groups: observation group and control group,the sample size of each group was 20.The patients in the observation group were treated with Buyang Huanwu Decoction Combined with traditional Chinese medicine fumigation,while the patients in the control group were only treated with traditional Chinese medicine fumigation.During this period(before treatment,2 weeks,1 month and 2 months),the following indexes were observed,recorded and compared between the two groups: Japanese Orthopedic Association lumbar vertebra evaluation treatment score(JOA)[1],visual analogue scale(VAS)[2],TCM symptom score,ODI questionnaire[2]and painless walking distance to evaluate the improvement of lumbar vertebra condition and the clinical effectiveness of corresponding treatment.Results1.JOA score: before treatment,the observation group score was(12.38±1.26),the control group score was(12.35±1.46).The difference between the two groups was not statistically significant(t=0.074,P=0.941).after 2 weeks of treatment,the score of the observation group was(16.45±1.65),and that of the control group was(15.85±1.53),which was higher than that of the control group,and the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant(t=1.192,P=0.241);after 1 month of treatment,the score of the observation group was(21.32±1.84),and that of the control group was(15.85±1.53)The difference between the two groups was statistically significant(t=2.443,P=0.019);After 2months of treatment,the score of the observation group was(24.32±2.25)and that of the control group was(21.98±2.02).The score of the observation group was higher than that of the control group,and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant(t=3.461,P=0.001).2.VAS score: before treatment,the score of the observation group was(6.78±0.81),the score of the control group was(6.56±0.75),the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant(t=0.891,P=0.378);After 2 weeks of treatment,the score of the observation group was(4.36±0.39)and that of the control group was(4.52±0.35),which was lower than that of the control group.There was no significant difference between the two groups(t=1.365,P =0.180);After one month of treatment,the score of the observation group was(3.15±0.28),and that of the control group was(3.32±0.21),which was lower than that of the control group.The difference between the two groups was statistically significant(t=2.172,P=0.036);After 2 months of treatment,the score of the observation group was(1.89±0.05),the score of the control group was(2.04±0.13),the observation group was lower than the control group,the difference between the two groups was statistically significant(t=5.160,P=0.000).3.TCM symptom score: before treatment,the observation group score was(16.78±1.45),the control group score was(16.55±1.46),the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant(t=0.499,P=0.620);after 2 weeks of treatment,the observation group score was(14.28±1.36),the control group score was(14.86±1.29),the observation group was lower than the control group,the difference between the two groups was statistically significant There was statistical significance(t=1.384,P=0.175);after 1month of treatment,the score of the observation group was(12.14±1.08),the score of the control group was(12.98±1.24),the observation group was lower than the control group,the difference between the two groups was statistically significant(t=2.284,P=0.028);After 2 months of treatment,the score of the observation group was(5.37±0.34)and that of the control group was(5.78±0.44),which was lower than that of the control group.The difference between the two groups was statistically significant(t=3.297,P=0.002).4.ODI score: Before treatment,the score of the observation group was(37.56±3.45),the score of the control group was(37.15±3.24),the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant(t=0.384,P=0.701);After 2 weeks of treatment,the score of the observation group was(29.78±2.34)and that of the control group was(30.25±2.46),which was lower than that of the control group.There was no significant difference between the two groups(t=0.619,P=0.539);One month after treatment,the score of the observation group was(19.78±1.45)and that of the control group was(21.35±1.86).The difference between the two groups was statistically significant(t=2.977,P=0.005);After 2 months of treatment,the score of the observation group was(11.26±0.26),and that of the control group was(11.75±0.32),which was lower than that of the control group.The difference between the two groups was statistically significant(t=5.315,P=0.000).5.Painless walking distance: before treatment,the observation group was(443.56±35.36)meters,the control group was(446.23±34.25)meters.There was no significant difference between the two groups(t=0.242,P=0.809).After 2 weeks of treatment,the observation group was(503.78±38.24)meters.The control group was(496.25±35.48)meters.The difference between the two groups was not statistically significant(t=0.645,P=0.523).After 1 month of treatment,the observation group was(764.78±45)meters,the control group was(713.25±58.86)meters,the observation group was far more than the control group.The difference between the two groups was statistically significant(t=2.663,P=0.011).After 2months of treatment,the observation group was(935.26±86.27)meters,the control group was(845.26 ± 78.32)meters,the observation group was far more than the control group.The difference between the two groups was statistically significant(t=3.454,P=0.001).Conclusion1.Traditional Chinese medicine fumigation can effectively relieve the pain and other clinical symptoms of patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.2.Buyang Huanwu Decoction Combined with traditional Chinese medicine fumigation in the treatment of DLSS can significantly improve the clinical symptoms of patients.Buyang Huanwu decoction has a synergistic and further supplementary effect on traditional Chinese medicine fumigation in the treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis.