| LIDP is a common disease which is classified as "pain in waist and legs" and "paralyzed syndrome" of TCM. It exerts great influence on patients' daily life and work, therefore, it turned out to be a hotspot on how to adopt more effective therapies to relieve patients' distress and social burden both at home and broad. Guided by Chinese medicine basic theories, and according to Jiao Yang, my mentor's research results of Professor Li's QingLongBaiWei acupuncture method enriched in the clinical experience, this task choose QLBW acupuncture method as a traditional treatment group and low- frequency and consecutive-wave electroacupuncture widely used as the best pain-killer as the control group, and research on clinical efficacy, pain grade and period of treatment to probe into an applied, steady, fast, operable, easy popularized and non-surgical therapy of LIDP to benefit the patients and have an instructive effect on the development of Acupuncture Therapies.Objective: Based on the Chinese medicine theories, and combined withmodern research, to compare QLBW acupuncture method with electro -acupuncture on the clinical efficacy of treating LIDP, and evaluate the improvement of these two therapies, moreover, further discuss the different mechanism of traditional method and electroacupuncture so as to offer real and credible warranty for the treatment.Methods: To separate the 62 patients randomly into QLBW Group, which has 31 cases, including 20 males and 11 females, aging from 22 to 69, the period of illness ranging from 7 days to 1 year, and electroacupunture (control) Group, which has 31 cases, including 17 males and 14 females, aging from 25 to 72, the period of illness ranging from 3 days to 1 year. After two periods of treatment, these two comparable groups are graded according to pain grade standard and lumbago estimative chart, based on the observational index of pain grade (VAS method) and symptom integral, and measure clinical effect according to effect measure standard. To carry on statistical analysis of the result of the self and between-group cross-reference.Results: (1)The two groups have both highly significant difference inpain grade compared with themselves in statistics(P<0.01), showing theyboth have obvious effect on easing pain. (2)According to between-group cross-conference, QLBW acupuncture method and electroacupuncture have significant difference in pain grade and symptom integral disparity(P<0.05) , but no difference in examination item, showing QLBWacupuncture method can remarkably ease pain and improve the patients' symptom and living capabilities. (3)The effective time of QLBW acupuncture method has significant difference from electro-acupuncturegroup (P<0.05) , indicating QLBW acupuncture method can effectivelyshorten period of treatment. (4)The completely recover rate and remarkably effective rate of QLBW are 58.06% and 83.87%, which are 32.26% and 61.29%, and both of them have significant difference(P<0.05 ) , but the chiefly effective rate shows no difference.Conclusion: QLBW acupuncture method and electroacupuncture all have certain effects, so each of which is a conservative therapy of LIDP, but QLBW is better than electroacupuncture in the aspects of easing pain and shortening period of treatment, and has higher rate of completely recover and remarkable efficiency, moreover, it is a normative and quantitative technique worthy of popularization. |
PDF Full Text Request