Clinical Research Of Acupuncture For Neck Pain Of Cervical Spondylosis Gudided By TCM Heart And Gall Theory

Object iveTo evaluate of clinical efficacy of cervical spondylosis and neck pain with acupuncture based on the theory of heart and gall bladder from TCM concept in order to explore an Sustained and effective method of treatment.MethodA randomized controlled trial of clinical research was conducted,63 patients who met the inclusion criteria of neck pain were recruited, used PEMS3.1 package to allocate the subjects into treatment group (heart and gall bladder group) and regular acupuncture group (regular group) randomly with the proportion of 1:1, with 35 subjects in each group. For the treatment group, PC 6,GB34(alternately used), cervical EX-B2 (2 pairs of acupoints above and below the positive reaction level of the cervical vertebrathe) were used, with BL15, BL19(alternately used) buried with intradermal needles;For the regular group,SJ3 and the cervical EX-B2 (2 pairs of acupoints above and below the positive reaction level of the cervical vertebrathe) were used, with Bailao (bilateral)buried with intradermal needles. Two methods require the usage of disposable acupuncture tube needle, the manipulation of a Twist slight lift and thrust was needed after the insertion of the needle,25mins of retention was needed after the sensation of acupuncture was attained, no more anipulation of the needle was needed during 25 mins; intradermal needles would be buried every 3 days. Treatment duration:10 days consisted one course, treatment would be done every other day and three times a week, at least 8 times would be completed during four weeks. NorthwickPark neck pain (NPQ), McGill Pain Questionnaire short form were used to observe the differences between the two groups at 4 different observation points, which were before treatment, the fifth treatment, the end of treatment and one month after the end of treatment. And adverse reactions and side effects during the study would be recorded whenever they happened. Used statistical software SPSS13.0 to do the description analysis, chi-square test and t test.Results1. There is no significant statistical difference between the efficacy measures of the both groups which include NPQ and McGill Pain Questionnaire (P> 0.05) and the general baseline of the patients from both groups before treatment which includes gender, age, education level, disease duration, previous treatment history, diagnosis and TCM syndrome type, showing a balance of baseline characteristics of the two groups and therefore they are comparable.2. By doing the paired t test, the scores of NPQ and MPQ decrease both during the treatment and one month after the treatment, and the comparison difference of NPQ score is highly statistically significant (P<0.01),while the comparison difference of MPQ scores is statistically significant (P<0.05), showing both methods are effective for treating neck pain.3. By doing the independent sample t test and comparing the two groups at the same observation time point, no significant difference was found in NPQ scores of the 5th treatment (P>0.05), while the difference was statistically significant at the end of treatment and follow-up of a month (P<0.05). There was statistically significant difference of comparison of McGill Pain Questionnaire scores one month after the treatment (P<0.05), and scores of treatment group decreased more than that of the regular group, indicating the efficacy of the treatment group is better than that of regular group.4. By doing the ridit analysis of the Clinical rating scale, no significant difference was found at the the end of treatment (short-term) (P>0.05), but at the follow-up of a month was found difference(P<0.05), suggest there is no obvious difference between both groups at the the short-term efficacy, while for the long-term efficacy, treatment group is superior to regular group.Conclusion1. The methods of the treatment group and regular group are both effective for treating neck pain;2. By comparing the short-term efficacy, there is no obvious difference between both groups, while for the long-term efficacy, treatment group is superior to regular group.