Clinical Study Of The Treatment Of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis BNI Active Method

Backgrounds:Lumbar Spinal Stenosis is a syndrome that consists of a series of clinical symptoms such as Cauda Equina and nerve root symptoms caused by the stenosis of lumbar spinal canal, nerve root canal, or the intervertebral foramen. It is mainly characterized by lumbago, intermittent limping, sensory disability in the lower limbs. Lumbar spinal stenosis is closely associated with age, whose morbidity is increasing with the fading time. Lumbar spinal stenosis is among the most common orthopedics which are of bad effects on the daily life of the olds, ranking second in the intraspinal diseases.Combination conservative treatments is taken for the lumbar spinal stenosis which is of alleviative symptoms or not of operation indications. Under this condition, drugs as anti-inflammatory analgesic NASIDs, muscle relaxant and corticosteroid steroids inhaled corticosteroids are widely used in the treatment of modern medicine, combined with physical therapy, functional exercise, bed rest and so on. Meanwhile, there are many effective methods in traditional Chinese medicine, for instance, oral administration and external application of Chinese medicine, bone-setting manipulation, acupuncture and moxibustion. Among these methods, oral administration of Chinese medicine is widely accepted by the patients because of its curative effect.The reports of oral administration of Chinese medicine are increasing in the last ten years. However, most reports are the personal experience summarizes, They didn’t use randomized controlled trial, and the case load is not enough, which seriously affected the objectivity and accuracy of the outcome.Purpose:(1) The observation " Replenishing qi and blood flow activating method " treatment of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis in clinical efficacy.(2) To observe the "Danlu Tongdu Tablet" of degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis in clinical efficacy.(3) The efficacy of these two treatment methods and compared, thereby affecting the efficacy of the relevant factors.Method:Wangjing Hospital of CACMS outpatients were randomly divided into two groups, the test group and control group. Each group has54cases. Experimental group received oral administration of traditional Chinese medicine. Control group was given the "Danlu Tongdu Tablet". Test group and control group all treated3weeks. Chosen the time before treatment,1weeks,2weeks,3weeks and4weeks to observe, marking the scores of VAS and JOA. Statistical Software:SPSS17.0 Measurable indicators using mean±standard deviation, the median description, count the number and percentage of indicators with cases described. Measurement data using t test and single factor analysis of variance (which do not meet the normal distribution, then the use of rank-sum test); count data using chi-square test, correlation analysis with Pearson. Data to indicate, a=0.05, P>0.05for the difference was not statistically significant, P<0.05for the difference was statistically significant, P<0.01for the difference in highly statistically significant.Results:The scores of JO A and VAS of the test group is of statistical significance(P<0.05) by single-factor test. Then by SNK test, Although the third week of scores and the second week of scores and follow-up score are no significant difference (P>0.05), but the mean increases gradually, with the time of treatment, the treatment group showed an increasing trend in efficacy.In the control group, The scores of JO A and VAS is of statistical significance(P<0.05) by single-factor test. Then by SNK test, Although the third week of scores and the second week of scores and follow-up score are no significant difference (P>0.05), but the mean increases gradually, with the time of treatment, the treatment group showed an increasing trend in efficacy. The good rate after treating two weeks is0, both the two groups. The good rate of the test group after3weeks’ treatment is33.3%,40.7%after4weeks’treatment. The good rate of the control group after3weeks’treatment is11.1%,22.3%after4weeks’treatment. Found that the good rate of the test group is better than that of the control group after3and4weeks’ treatment.Conclusion:Through the above analysis:(1) The two methods are both effective. They both can help to relieve pain, extend the walking distance and improve the symptoms of lower limb.(2) The test group does better in the aspect of relieving pain and improving the symptoms of lower limb. But there is not an obvious difference between the two of the long-term effect after1month.(3) There is not an apparent difference on the overall efficacy, but the good rate of the test group is better than the other.