Member Of The Acupuncture Treatment Of Cervical Spondylosis Clinical Curative Effect Observation

Objective:To observe the clinical efficacy of the round-sharp needling and routine acupuncture treatment of cervical spondylosis patients, the efficacy of the two treatment methods were compared.Methods:According to the clinical diagnostic criteria,50patients of cervicalspondylosis were randomly divided into treatment group (members of the round-sharp needling) in25cases,25cases of the control group(routine acupuncture). Treatment group based on the site of the lesion and symptoms to choose the points. The mainly acupoints are Ashi, neck Jiaji, Bingfeng and plus acupoints based on overall analysis of symptoms and signs. Once a day,5times for a course of treatment. The control group according to Acupuncture Modern Research and Application’s[1] point selection method, Laozhen, Ashi, neck Jiaji, Dazhui, Tianzhu, Dazhu, Fengchi, Baihui, Hegu.Dizzinesspius Fengfu, Yuzhen; pain of shoulder plus Tianzong, Jianwaishu; tinnitus plus Tinggong, Yifeng. Jiaji points of neck must not be too deep. The other points in accordance with the routine points. Patients have been treated for10-20minutes, onceaday. After a course of treatment the effects will be evaluated.By the use of short-form of McGill pain questionnaire which is internationally recognized, patients in both groups accept the score assessment of PRI, VAS and PPI before and after one treatment session, to observe the improvement of both group patients, by Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ) and make evaluation for clinical efficacy of two groups after treatment.Results:(1) The treatment group patients, McGill feeling-PRI, emotion-PRI, total-PRI, VAS, PPI and NPQ scores have statistically significant differences before and after the treatment (p<0.05)(2) The control group patients, McGillfeeling-PRI, emotion-PRI, total-PRI, VAS, PPI and NPQ scores have statistically significant differences before and after treatment p<0.05).(3) The treatment and control group patients McGill feeling-PRI, total-PRI, VAS and NPQ scores have statistically significant differences after treatment (p<0.05), but no differences in McGill PPI scores (p>0.05)(4) Clinical efficacy of treatment and control groups has statistically significant differences after the treatment session (p<0.05) Conclusion:(1) The clinical symptoms such as pain and discomfort in both groups have significant improvement after one treatment session.(2) The treatment group is better than control group in McGill feeling-PRI, total-PRI, VAS and NPQ scores after the treatment, but in the McGill PPI scores are no differences between these two groups.(3) The better clinical efficacy has been achieved for the round-sharp needling and its efficacy is superior to the routine acupuncture treatment.