| Objective:Taking knee osteoarthritis(KOA)patients as the research object,through the acupuncture of force-sensitive acupoints combined with moxibustion of heat-sensitive acupoints and observe its clinical efficacy,hoping to explore a clinical treatment for this disease A new method.Methods:Ninety patients with KOA who met the inclusion criteria were randomly divided into the double-sensitivity therapy group(treatment group),the general acupuncture + heat-sensitive moxibustion group(control group A),and the heat-sensitive moxibustion group(group A)B control group),the three groups were 30 cases.Before treatment,patients who need sensitization acupoint treatment will be investigated for Limin Acupoint and Heat-sensitive Acupoint.The exploration of Limin Acupoint will be operated by the same person.The exploration of Heat-sensitive Acupoint will be trained and approved by standardized heat-sensitive moxibustion technology.Examined medical personnel perform operations.Acupuncture and moxibustion were used in the treatment group to select 4-6 Limin acupoints with the highest sensitization and 2-3 heat-sensitive acupoints.The control group was treated with heat-sensitive moxibustion at acupoints.The time of moxibustion in the three groups was saturated with heat-sensitive moxibustion and the needle retention time was30 minutes.The three groups were treated once a day.Six consecutive treatments were a course of rest.On the next day,the next course of treatment was carried out for a total of 4 courses of treatment.Observe the changes of the score indexes of the three groups of patients before and after the treatment,and follow up the patients in the three groups after 3 months to calculate the recurrence of the patients’ conditions and evaluate theshort-term and long-term clinical effects of the three groups of patients.Results:1.Case removal and shedding: No one was removed or shedding in the treatment group;one patient(women)in the control group suffered a sudden hypertensive crisis due to overwork and emotional stimulation,and needed hospitalization for observation and treatment.In clinical trials,she was given off treatment.One patient(male)in the control group B was injured due to an accident while swimming,and the surrounding skin was severely damaged,and normal treatment could not be continued.2.Comparison of visual analogue(VAS)scores of pain before treatment and end of treatment in the three groups: treatment group(5.98 ± 1.77)before treatment and end of treatment It was(1.33 ± 1.45);control group(5.47 ± 1.94)before treatment and end of treatment It was(2.22 ± 1.50);the control group B was(6.05 ± 1.85)before treatment,and the end of treatment was(3.63 ± 2.11).The differences between the three groups before treatment and at the end of treatment were statistically significant(P <0.01);the pairwise comparison between the three groups at the end of treatment were statistically significant(P <0.05),of which the treatment group Compared with the B control group,the difference was statistically significant(P <0.01).3.Comparison of Western Ontario and Mc Master University Osteoarthritis Index(WOMAC)scores before and end of treatment(1)WOMAC pain score comparison: The treatment group was(23.95 ± 7.35)before treatment,and the end of treatment was(7.85 ± 3.68);the A control group was(24.48 ± 6.82)before treatment,and the end of treatment was(12.34 ± 4.71);the B control group was(24.00 ±)before treatment.7.25),the end of treatment was(17.11 ±5.83).The differences between the three groups before treatment and at the end of treatment were statistically significant(P <0.01);the pairwise comparison between the three groups at the end of treatment were statistically significant(P <0.05),of which the treatment group Compared with the A and B control groups,the difference was statistically significant(P <0.01).(2)Comparison of WOMAC stiffness score: The treatment group was(9.07 ± 3.44)before treatment,and the end of treatment was(3.43 ± 1.55);the control group was(9.83 ± 3.31)before treatment,and the end of treatment was(5.86 ± 3.52);the control group was(9.14 ±)2.92),the end of treatment was(8.04 ± 2.95).The differences between the three groups before treatment and at the end of treatment were statistically significant(P <0.01);the pairwise comparison between the three groups at the end of treatment were statistically significant(P <0.05),of which the treatment group Compared with the B control group,the difference was statistically significant(P<0.01).(3)Comparison of WOMAC daily activity scores: The treatment group was(60.37± 7.38)before treatment and(15.23 ± 7.12)at the end of treatment;the control group was(60.72 ± 7.33)before treatment and(29.90 ± 6.90)at the end of treatment;the control group was(59.43 ±)before treatment.6.77),the end of treatment was(36.54 ±6.51).Comparing the three groups before and after treatment,the differences were statistically significant(P <0.01);the pairwise comparisons between the three groups at the end of treatment were statistically significant(P <0.05),of which the treatment group and A,Compared with the control group,the difference was statistically significant(P <0.01).4.Comparison of Lysholm scores before and end of treatment in the three groups: The treatment group was(54.70 ± 7.13)before treatment and(83.40 ± 6.72)at the end of treatment;the control group was(53.28 ± 6.70)before treatment and(74.41 ± 6.68)at the end of treatment;the control group was(55.32 ±)6.87),the end of treatment was(67.21 ± 8.82).The differences between the three groups before and at the end of treatment were statistically significant(P <0.01);the pairwise comparison between the three groups after treatment were statistically significant(P <0.05),of which the treatment group Compared with the A and B control groups,the difference was statistically significant(P <0.01).5.Compare the clinical efficacy of the three groups: The total effective rates of the treatment group,control group A,and control group B were 96.67%,86.20%,and 75%,respectively.The effective rate of the treatment group was significantly higher than that of the control groups A and B.It has statistical significance(P <0.05).6.Comparison of the recurrence rates of the three groups after 3 months follow-up:The recurrence rates of the treatment group,control group A,and B control group were10.34%,32%,and 42.86%,respectively.The recurrence rates of the treatment group were significantly lower than those of the A control group and the B control group.Statistical significance(P<0.05).Conclusion:1.The dual-sensitivity therapy has a positive clinical effect on "nodular" KOA,and its long-term effect is better;2.Compared with acupuncture at traditional acupuncture points,acupuncture at Limin acupoint has more advantages in treating "knotty" KOA in improving pain symptoms,joint stiffness,and daily activities.3.The dual-sensitivity therapy is safe and efficient,with little toxic and side effects,and is worthy of clinical promotion. |
PDF Full Text Request