| Objective: To observe and compare the clinical efficacy of two different acupuncture schemes,the routine acupuncture and the routine acupuncture combined with blood-letting at the well-point after identifying meridians,on relieving nerve root symptoms of lumbar intervertebral disc protrusion(LIDP).In order to further improve the clinical efficacy of treating nerve root symptoms of lumbar disc herniation by acupuncture.Methods: From April 2021 to December 2021,60 patients with LIDP who met the inclusion criteria and visited in the Massage Department and Acupuncture Department of the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine,were randomly divided into observation group and control group according to the visiting time,with 30 patients in each group.The control group was treated with the routine acupuncture therapy,which is of the national higher colleges and universities of Chinese medicine for teaching(tenth edition)“acupuncture therapy” of“sciatica” acupuncture therapy treatment,While the observation group applied the blood-letting at the well-point on the basis of the control group after identifying the meridians.The method of blood-letting at well-point is: if the numbness and pain symptoms are mainly at the back of lower limbs,it is identified as the syndrome of Foot-Taiyang meridian and taken the Zhiyin point of the Bladder Meridian of Foot-Taiyang to pricking and bloodletting;if the numbness and pain symptoms are mainly at the outside of lower limbs,it is identified as the syndrome of Foot-Shaoyang meridian,and taken the Zuqiaoyin point of the Gallbladder Meridian Foot-Shaoyang to pricking and bloodletting.Acupuncture treatment in both groups was once a day,5 times a week,one week as a course;In the observation group,the bloodletting therapy was once every 3-4 days,that is,twice a week,and one week also as a course of treatment.Both groups were treated for two course.Visual Analogue Score(VAS)of lumbar and leg pain and lower limb numbness,and modified Japanese Orthopaedic Society Low Back Pain Scale(M-JOA)scores were measured before and after treatment,and the clinical efficacy of the two groups were observed.Finally,the observation results were statistically analyzed.Results:(1)Results of clinical efficacy of the two groups: in the observation group of 30 cases,5 cases were cured,15 cases were significantly effective,8 cases were improved,and 2 cases were ineffective,with a total effective rate of93.3%.And in the control group of 30 cases,3 cases were cured,9 cases were marked effective,12 cases were improved,6 cases were ineffective,the total effective rate was 80.0%.There was no significant difference in the total effective rate between the observation group and the control group(P>0.05).However,comparing the overall clinical efficacy of the two groups by the rank-sum test,it is showed that the difference was significant,and the clinical efficacy of the observation group was better than that of the control group(P<0.05).(2)VAS score of lumbar and leg pain: VAS score of lumbar and leg pain in the observation group after treatment [2.00(1.00,3.00)] decreased compared with that before treatment [5.00(4.00,6.00)],and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).In the control group,VAS score of lumbar and leg pain after treatment [2.00(1.00,2.25)] also decreased compared with that before treatment [5.00(4.00,6.00)],and the difference was statistically significant.After treatment,there was no significant difference in VAS score of lumbar and leg pain between the observation group [2.00(1.00,3.00)] and the control group [2.00(1.00,2.25)](P>0.05).(3)VAS score of lower limb numbness: VAS score of lower limb numbness in observation group after treatment [2.00(2.00,3.00)] decreased compared with that before treatment [6.00(5.00,6.25)],and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).VAS score of lower limb numbness in the control group after treatment [3.00(2.00,3.25)] also decreased compared with that before treatment [6.00(5.00,6.00)],and the difference was statistically significant.However,VAS score of lower limb numbness in the observation group [2.00(2.00,3.00)] was lower than that in the control group [3.00(2.00,3.25)] after treatment,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).(4)The M-JOA score: The M-JOA score of the observation group after treatment(6.67±2.70)was lower than that before treatment(16.03±2.00),and the difference was significant(P<0.05).The M-JOA score of the control group after treatment(8.50±2.69)was lower than that before treatment(16.37±1.87),and the difference was also statistically significant(P<0.05).However,the M-JOA score of the observation group(6.67±2.70)was significantly lower than that of the control group(8.50±2.69)(P<0.05).Conclusion:(1)Simple routine acupuncture is an effective treatment method to relieve the nerve root symptoms of LIDP,but combined with blood-letting of well-point after identifying meridians on the basis of routine acupuncture can significantly improve the clinical efficacy.(2)Both of these two treatments,the routine acupuncture and the routine acupuncture combined with blood-letting at well-point after identifying meridians,can relieve the nerve root symptoms and improve the signs of LIDP,but in terms of improving the symptoms of lower limb numbness,conventional acupuncture combined with blood-letting at well-point after identifying meridians is superior to conventional acupuncture alone.(3)Routine acupuncture combined with blood-letting at well-point after identifying meridians can effectively relieve the nerve root symptoms and improve the signs of LIDP,and its curative effect is definite and the operation is not complicated,which is worthy of clinical application. |
PDF Full Text Request