| Background:Lumbosacral muscle fasciitis is due to lumbosacral muscles, failed to treat acute contusion fascia, or some kind of long-term posture, long-term weight-bearing physical labor causes chronic fatigue, feeling cold or other reasons, the muscles and fascia produce inflammation, exudation, edema secondary changes, unhealed caused adhesions, scar contracture. Lumbosacral muscle fasciitis is a common clinical orthopedic diseases, clinical manifestations of the following symptoms of low back pain, and epidemiological studies abroad, noted that the incidence of low back pain about62%to86%, and85%of margin due to myofascial pain patients, age of onset is approximately between30to50years old, and there is gradually getting younger and younger, which seriously affected the quality of life of the people and work, so lumbosacral low back pain caused by muscle fasciitis research and more attention of the medical profession.Oral medication is the treatment of lumbosacral myofascitis common conservative therapy, medicine to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs based, is widely used in clinical practice, but because of side effects is relatively large, and the price is too expensive, so many patients are reluctant to accept. The advantage of its relatively simple and inexpensive medicine experience, and been recognized by more patients, especially in the last decade, the reported total efficiency of traditional Chinese medicine for more than90%. However, in the last decade review of the existing literature in the process, we also found that the current Chinese medicine clinical research lumbosacral muscle fasciitis rigorous enough, can not provide convincing scientific basis from the perspective of evidence-based medicine, and must most of the literature on the understanding of traditional Chinese medicine syndrome differentiation is not uniform, a variety of different diagnostic criteria and treatment methods, the lack of randomized control that seriously affected the traditional Chinese medicine treatment of this disease and to promote further research. Although the etiology and pathogenesis of medicine from various on medication for muscle fasciitis dialectical understanding of each are not the same, but the reported clinical efficacy or positive, is therefore essential dialectical analysis of Chinese medicine treatment of muscle fasciitis.Purpose:This paper intends randomized controlled based on the use of scientific and practical research methods aimed at comparing observed and evaluated "Sam soup" treatment is a liver and kidney deficiency syndrome, lumbosacral alpine-type muscle fasciitis Blockage clinical efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine treatment of the disease further clinical application of evidence-based medicine to provide an objective basis.Methods:60patients from the Chinese Academy of Traditional Wangjing Hospital outpatient spine Second, the patients met the inclusion criteria will be assigned to the experimental group (30cases) according to a random number table and the control group (30cases). Test group to be "Sam soup" oral, day one, twice, morning and evening hours service. The control group received ibuprofen orally, once a day, twice, morning and evening hours service. Two groups of patients are treatment cycle1week before treatment, after1week of treatment, after treatment three times a month to collect data points, using VAS pain score, Oswestry Disability Index score for efficacy evaluation. Statistical analysis using SPSS19.0statistical software for analysis. All statistical tests were performed using two-sided test, P <0.05was considered significant statistically significant. Measurement data using t test, count data using χ2test.Result:1week after treatment:in VAS pain score on the test group and the control group after treatment VAS pain scores after1week, the t test, t=1.117, P>0.05, the difference was not statistically significant, indicating that the two groups in the treatment of one week after the pain was no difference;1week after treatment, the test group and the control group before and after treatment VAS pain score difference compared by t test, t=0.103, P>0.05, the difference was not statistically significant, indicating that the two groups before and after treatment There were no differences in pain relief, further described pain relief drug test group and the control group role quite. ODI score in the test group and the control group after one week ODI scores by t test, t=2.250, P<0.05, the difference was statistically significant, indicating that there are differences between the two groups after1week of treatment of lumbar functional status of the experimental group than the control group lumbar functional status;1week after treatment, the test group and the control group before and after treatment ODI score difference compared by t test, t=-1.106, P<0.05, the difference was statistically significant, indicating improve lumbar function before and after treatment are more differences, further illustrate the test group of drugs on the role of lumbar functional improvement than the control group. Treatment1week1month:in VAS pain scores, the treatment within a month’s time to test and control groups VAS score difference comparing one week later, the t test, t=1.312, P>0.05, the difference not statistically significant, indicating that the two groups within one week after treatment to a month’s time there was no difference in pain relief, and further illustrate the analgesic effect of two drugs sustained considerable. In ODI score on within one week after treatment to a month’s time, the test group and the control group ODI score difference compared by t test, t=0.868, P>0.05, the difference was not statistically significant, indicating that the two groups within one week after treatment to a month’s time there was no difference in lumbar functional improvement, and further illustrate the drug test group continued to improve the role and function of the lumbar controls fairly Total efficiency:by Wilcoxon rank sum test, ODI score between the two groups after treatment there was statistically significant (P<0.01), markedly effective rate of the test group and the total efficiency of30.0%and96.7%, respectively, in the control group markedly effective rate and the total effective rate was13.3%and93.3%, respectively, the total efficiency of the test group and markedly effective rate than the control group, the two groups showed no adverse reactions.Conclusion:(1) the treatment of lumbosacral myofascitis both methods are effective, can well relieve pain and improve lumbar functional status.(2) during treatment and during follow-up, the two groups did not differ significantly in terms of pain relief.(3) the experimental group during the treatment of lumbar function to improve the situation is better than in the control group, but there was no significant difference between the two follow-up of efficacy.(4) comparing the two groups with differences in overall efficacy and markedly effective rate of the experimental group was significantly higher. |
PDF Full Text Request