| ObjectiveRenal colic is one of the common emergencies of urology,and urinary calculus is the common cause.Renal colic is usually acute and sudden,and the pain is severe enough to require urgent analgesic treatment.Due to the limitation of specialty,site and treatment process,patients often suffer for a long time before formal analgesia treatment.In addition,the conventional drug therapy has the disadvantages of slow onset and many side effects.Therefore,there is an urgent need for a quick,effective and simple method to treat renal colic.Qiu’s acupoint is a special acupoint for the treatment of renal colic discovered by my tutor Professor Qiu Yunqiao after many years of clinical practice.Finger pressing Qiu’s acupoint in the treatment of renal colic has the characteristics of obvious analgesic effect,convenient and quick operation,economic safety and easy to learn,and is not limited by site and time.The purpose of this study was to compare the effective rate,onset time,recurrence rate and adverse reactions between finger pressing Qiu’s acupoint and intravenous injection of parecoxib sodium in the treatment of renal colic by a randomized controlled study,so as to evaluate the advantages and advantages of finger pressing Qiu’s acupoint in the treatment of renal colic and the current conventional treatment drugs.Methods:1.In strict accordance with the inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria,80 patients with calculous renal colic were screened in the emergency department and ward.2.According to the block random method,the 80 subjects meeting the standard were randomly divided into Qiu’s acupoint group and control group,with 40 cases in each group.Qiu’s acupoint group was treated with finger pressing Qiu’s acupoint on the affected side of digital pressure,and the control group was treated with 40 mg parecoxib sodium intravenously.3.The VAS pain scale was used to score the pain degree of patients in 2 groups before and 1,5,10,20,30 and 120 min after treatment.The onset time of analgesia,relapse and adverse reactions within 24 h after treatment were recorded.4.The collected data were saved in Excel and then imported into SPSS26.0 statistical software for statistical analysis,so as to explore the difference between finger pressing Qiu’s acupoint in the treatment of renal colic and intravenous injection of parecoxib sodium.Results:1.Comparison of patients’ general conditions: All subjects completed this study,and there was no case of shedding during this period.There were no statistically significant differences in age,gender,pain location,stone location,stone size and pre-treatment VAS score between the two groups,both of which were P > 0.05.The general conditions of the two groups were comparable.2.Comparison of the observation indexes between the two groups: After treatment,there was no significant difference in the effective rate between the Qiu’s acupoint group and the control group(P > 0.05);VAS scores of 2 groups at 1,5,10 and 20 min after treatment were statistically different(P < 0.05),the average value of VAS score of Qiu’s acupoint group were all lower than that of control group.There was no significant difference in VAS scores between the two groups at 30 and 120 min after treatment(P >0.05).In terms of onset time,the difference between the two groups was statistically significant(P < 0.05),and the median of onset time in Qiu’s acupoint group was smaller than that in the control group.There was no significant difference in pain recurrence rate between the two groups(P >0.05).Conclusion:Finger pressing Qiu’s acupoint in the treatment of renal colic is significantly better than intravenous injection of pareoxib sodium in the time of onset and the analgesic effect at the initial stage of treatment,and the total effective rate,recurrence rate and adverse reaction rate were similar to those of intravenous injection of pareoxib sodium.Finger pressing Qiu’s acupoint is a characteristic technique of traditional Chinese medicine which can treat renal colic quickly and efficiently,and it is worthy to be widely applied.There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between the two groups within 24 h after treatment(P > 0.05). |
PDF Full Text Request