Activating Blood And Kidney Method Treatment In Clinical Observation Of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Disease (LSS)

ObjectiveWith the advent of population aging, lumbar spinal stenosisdisease has become a bone traumatology department outpatientservice one of the most common symptoms, we treated in outpatientservice application internal qi and kidney method of treatment ofthe disease, has obtained the good curative effect, we use themethod with oral waist bi tong capsule the comparison, analysis ofthe curative effect of invigorate the circulation of kidney method,this study was to compare two methods in JOA score after treatment,clinical efficacy, pain, improve, and improvements in walkingdistance is different, and by comparing with JOA score in each stageof the treatment period, to investigate the efficacy of the twomethods of stability.methodsAccording to the patient and exclusion criteria, observation,analysis,2012.6to2013.3in hubei province hospital oforthopaedics expert outpatient service square built professor makea diagnosis and give treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS)patients were63. Patients divided into two groups, the treatment group and36patients, invigorate the circulation of kidney methodtreatment is given priority to, supplemented by TCM syndromedifferentiation and treatment with Chinese medicine internal andcertificate for treatment; Control group27patients, the use oforal waist bi tong capsule (jiangsu side of kang pharmaceutical co.,LTD. Production of0.42g*100/box), three times a day, threepills treatment. Treatment group and control group were treated for6weeks,2weeks after the treatment were followed up for one moretime. Using Japanese Orthopedic Association (Japanese OrthopedicAssociation, JOA) therapeutic effect evaluation standard oflumbago diseases and VAS pain visual analog scale method and thecurative effect evaluation function, the application of twoindependent samples t test, using SPSS17.0software for dataprocessing, compare the curative effect of these methods, comparetwo methods in pain JOA score, improve, and improvements in walkingdistance is different, and by comparing the JOA score in each stageof the treatment period, to investigate the efficacy of the twomethods of stability.Results(1) in the treatment group before and after treatment symptomsand signs integral comparison, by t test, p <0.01, the differenceis statistically significant, after treating the patients withsymptoms and signs improved significantly;(2) in the control group before and after treatment symptoms andsigns integral comparison, by t test, p <0.01, the difference isstatistically significant, after treating the patients withsymptoms and signs improved significantly; (3) after treatment, the treatment group and control group onthe JOA score between the two groups, statistically significant (P<0.05), the treatment group was superior to control group to theimprovement of the symptoms and signs;(4) integral, signs and symptoms in treatment group, afterstatistics analysis, through the SNK test again, all meaningfulfollow-up in each time point (P <0.05). Before mark <2weeks aftertreatment of integral <4weeks after treatment of integral <6weeksafter treatment of integral=follow-up after treatment. Thus, eachperiod of the relative2weeks before the treatment are effect,6weeks follow-up treatment effect than that of no significant change,the curative effect of treatment group with its stability.Signs and symptoms integral,(5) control group, after statisticsanalysis, through the SNK test again, all meaningful follow-up ineach time point (P <0.05). Before mark<2weeks after integraltreatment <4weeks after treatment scores integral=6weeks afterintegral treatment=after treatment follow-up. This shows thefirst four weeks of treatment effect is remarkable, at the time of6weeks and follow-up of the improvement is not obvious curativeeffect, compared with before two weeks, that stability with itscurative effect in the control group.(6) compared to the treatment group and control group intreatment of symptoms and signs scores of each treatment stage, thetwo independent samples t test, the first four weeks of twotreatment methods has no statistical significance (P>0.05); Aftersix weeks and follow-up with statistical significance (P <0.05),explain the first two weeks for symptoms and signs improvement has no obvious difference, the first four weeks and follow-up, six weeksafter the treatment group is better than the control group;(7) treatment group before and after treatment VAS pain score,score points difference before and after the treatment have asignificant statistical significance (P <0.01), treatment groupmethod has a good analgesic effect;(8) in the control group before and after treatment comparisonVAS pain score, score points difference before and after thetreatment have a significant statistical significance (P <0.01),treatment group method has a good analgesic effect;(9) after the treatment, two independent samples t test, aftertreatment, the VAS pain score data differences statisticallysignificant (P <0.05), the treatment group was superior to controlgroup to the improvement of the pain;(10) for6weeks after treatment, the treatment efficiency ishigher than the control group, treatment group, according to thechi-square difference has significant statistical significance (P<0.05), treatment group curative effect is better than the controlgroup;(11), six weeks after two treatments are effective to theimprovement of the walking distance, before and after treatmentwith statistical difference (P <0.05), after treatment to theimprovement of the walking distance between the two groups nosignificant statistical difference (P>0.05), treatment group andcontrol group no significant difference to the improvement of thewalking distance. ConclusionActivating blood and kidney method and lumbar bi tong capsuletreatment of oral disease, lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) has goodcurative effect, on the JOA score improved overall curative effectand treatment in treatment group were slightly better than thecontrol group; Two treatment methods in treatment group and controlgroup in alleviating effect are more apparent lumbocrural pain, thetreatment group were slightly better than the control group; Twotreatment methods have higher the stability of the treatment effect,but the treatment group in the three weeks after the treatmenteffect is high in the control group; For the improvement of walkingdistance, treatment and control group no significant difference.