| Study BackgroundCervical spondylotic radiculopathy CSR accounted for theproportion of each type of cervical spondylosis about50%-60%, with80%of patients with radicularpain. CSR cervical radiculopathy due to cervical disc and surrounding structures gradually degeneration, osteoarthritis, or cervical curve after changing the cervical nerve irritation or compression syndrome caused by a group.Ancient and modern medical research CSR disease path ogenesis not for unity, so the treatment of CSR in different ways; some patients because of pain and the choice of means of anti-inflammatory analgesicpain medications to relievepain, but the drawback is Most have some side effects, and high relapse rate; because important parts of the complex structure of the neck, is one of many important nerves, blood vessels, the central nervous system through the site, is topull one of the keyparts of the body, so if CSR patients seek surgical therapy, it’s technical standards for doctors is very high, because the surgery slightest mistake, it will cause irreversible paralysis and other troubles; also because of changes in cervical disease is a degenerative disease, even after surgery or the effect can not be achieved once and for all. Currently, the CSR clinical treatment, except for a few patients with typical indications for surgery and minimally invasive surgery using surgical therapy, most patients still prefer non-surgical treatment.Clinical studies of CSR disease is characterized by slower onset, and easy to repeated attacks; disease showed a younger age are more trends, the incidence of high-risk groups concentrated in white-collar work long curved neck bow and mobile computer family, the annual increasing the number of visits to the hospital, the high number of people accounted for theproportion of outpatient treatment of pain, while receiving inappropriate treatment or referral from long-healed are also many.In my so much years of clinical practice, inherited mentor professor LAI Xin-sheng " Lingshu. Officer pin papers" classical needle acupuncture analgesia thought and clinical-experience in many years, based on the traditional Chinese medicine to find a way one kind treatment can help patients effectively and efficiently control the clinical symptoms of the disease, improve the patient’s quality of life and restore the function of living CSR treatment achieved good results, especially in addressing the CSR root pain, the effect is very good; then in the tutor under the guidance of professor LAI Xin-sheng, in order to obtain a more comprehensive treatment, so on the classical clinical acupuncture combined Chiropractic techniques of integrated therapyObjectiveStudy investigated the " Lingshu. Officer pin papers "cures illnesses Gubi classical acupuncture needling of Short spines method and Transmission spines method, corrective spinal manipulative therapy combined with Chiropractic clinical efficacy and mechanism of combination therapy efficacy and compared with push-pin, single needle, non-invasive technique single Chiropractic treatment of clinical efficacy and the difference between the efficacy and application, exploratory treatment of CSR has the effect of the consolidation, significant clinical efficacy, safety of the combination therapy, hoping identify worthy non-surgical, inexpensive, effective speed, free drugs, fewer side effects and a low recurrence rate treatments toprovide clinical applications.MethodsDuiring theperiod of September2011to December2012, we selected120simple CSRpatients who accepted treatment in New Taipei City, Taiwan, Ren Ji Hospital.. Taipei Ching Kee Chinese Medicine Clinic and Hospital of Guangzhou University of Traditional Chinese acupuncture clinic。According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, Under hospital’s order, according to a completely randomized design methods into the treatment group A and group B, C groups of three groups of40each. A treatment group therapy is the use of acupuncture method of Short spines and Transmission spines method combined with Chiropractic, while the control group B is the use of acupuncture method of Short spines and Transmission spines needling therapy, group C is used as a simple Chiropractic.The evaluation observed and compared three groups of symptom score, using the CSR20points symptoms and functional scale and simplify the McGillpain scale observation and therapeutic efficacy as indicators, and with different syndromes, the recurrence rate tracking, reaching the same treatment efficacy when compared to the average number of observations and determine the efficacy of secondary indicators evaluated. ResultsIn this study, the treatment group A into the group of40cases, excluding two cases, the completion of38cases; control group B into the group of40cases, excluding one case, the completion of39cases; treatment group C into the group of40cases, excluding two cases, the completion of38cases; All completed a total of115cases.Gender composition of the three groups of patients, the x2test, p value0.892>0.05, so no difference in gender distribution was not statistically significant, indicating no difference in theproportion of both men and women. Three groups of patients age distribution, the x2test, p value0.314>0.05, indicating no difference in age distribution was not statistically significant.Three groups of patients before treatment duration distribution, the x2test, p value0.311>0.05, indicating the duration of the distribution group no difference. Three groups of patients before treatment, disease classification case, the x2test, p value0.329>0.05, indicating thatpre-treatment of the disease within thepacket classification distribution did not differ.Comparative clinical symptoms, signs and improving indexpoints difference, the K-W test,p<0.05, three groups have significant difference, indicating that the treatment group improved more clinical disease signs and symptoms. The two groups respectively, Mann-Whitney test, indicating that the treatment group A than in the control group, B, C can better improve disease clinical symptoms and signs, which the control group than the control group C、B.Pain scores before and after treatment comparison results, compared with the control group, the K-W test, p<0.05, three groups have significant difference. The two groups respectively, Mann-Whitney test, indicating that the treatment group A than in the control group B、C can better improve clinical disease signs and symptoms ofpain, but the control group than the control group C、B.Difference in pain scores before and after treatment comparison results, the K-W test, p values were less than0.05,p*<0.05,p**<0.001, compared three groups had significant difference, indicating three different treatments after treatment, the treatment group A on different aspects of improvement ofpain is superior to the control group B、C, the control group C than the control group B.Before and after treatmentpain score to improve the relationship with the treatment by rank test, the first course of treatment compared with before treatment, p<0.05, described in the first course of treatment after three treatments forpain scorepRI improvement in the treatment group A was significantly better than the treatment group C, the treatment group C was significantly better than the treatment group B, description and use of Acupuncture treatments can effectively reduce the patient’spain scorepRI; compared with theprevious course of treatment, p <0.05, indicating three treatments can makepatients at the end of the second course ofpRIpain score decreased, which means that three methods forpain patients have been improved, and the controlpatients in the sameperiodpain score after the PRI,p <0.05, Corollary treatment group ApatientspRIpain score improved significantly better than the control group B, group C, and use the needle topush theprocess of therapy in the treatment of patients can be given morepain relief.Clinical efficacy in the treatment group A and group B、C excellent rates were100%,71%,97%, the K-W test, three groups compare the clinical efficacy of the overall satisfactory rate was a significant difference, p<0.05, To illustrate the treatment group than the control group.Clinical efficacy in the treatment group A and group B、C excellent rates were100%,71%,97%, the K-W test, three groups compared with the overall efficacy of clinical significant difference,p<0.05, indicating that the treatment group efficacy is superior to the control group.The patient’s age group, after K-W test, four groups of patients of different ages with significant efficacy difference, p<0.05, so the difference was statistically significant, it can be seen after treatment efficacy analysis, three kinds of therapy young adultspatients (aged<40years;40to60years) a significant effect on the elderly are less effective.The K-W test the efficacy of different duration of the relationship with the patient, p<0.05, illustrate different course of treatment amongpatients with significant differences in the calculated good rate, we found that duration<6months of the highest efficacy in patients that shorter duration the better the effect.From efficacy perspective, three groups therapy can take effect, after two courses of treatment to achieve effective cure. Achieve the effect of the average number of active,-the K-W after significant difference test,p<0.05, which means that patients treated with three treatments to achieve effective average number of significant differences, but achieve the effect of the average number of effective to treat A group of at least; to effect a cure, the average number of times, based on the K-W test,p<0.05, significant difference, which means that patients treated with three treatment methods to cure the effect of differences in the average number is comparable, in which treatment A group of at least, after the above test results, the treatment group A corollary to the average number of treatments for a minimum of treatment efficacy is quick.Group with three different syndromes efficacy relationships to K-W test, wind cold type, phlegm and blood stasis, qi stagnation, blood deficiency efficacy differences between various types, no significant difference, x2values were8.801(p>0.05),31.505(p<0.05),6.209(p>0.05), which means that different syndromes patients were treated with three different therapies, the treatment group A and group C in the group efficacy score Nil significant differences in the control group B, the liver and kidney deficiency syndromepatients in the efficacy scores were significantly lower than other groups, further analysis of liver and kidney insufficiency of patients in the three treatment methods efficacy score to K-W test, we have significant differences, x2value of17.455, p<0.05, which means that patients with renal insufficiency subjected to the control group B after treatment less effective, indicating three different therapies, acupuncture treatment in liver and kidney insufficiency may be less effective in patients.Three groups of patients relapse rate compared to K-W test, p=0.012**<0.05, which means that the recurrence rate of three groups of therapy, with a significant difference between the treatment group B most likely to relapse. |
PDF Full Text Request