| ObjectiveMyofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is a common cause of lumber pain. Myofascial trigger points (MTrPs, taut bands of suffering muscle that can be touched and induce tendernes or referred pain) is an essential feature of MPS. Insisting pain signals can induce pathological change on spinal core and central nerve system, thus cause spinal segmental sensitization and central nerve system sensitization, which is a cause of intractable pain. Acupuncture on Jiaji Points can stimulate on spinal nerve, prevent the progress of spinal segmental sensitization and central nerve system sensitization from improving. This research adopted the meathod of acupuncture on Jiaji, comparing with local blocking therapy by injecting lidocaine, to observe the clinical effect of acupuncture on JiaJi Points for MPS, and, furthermore, to discover a simple and effective therapy without side-effects.MethodsThe research used a randomized controlled trail (RCT) method.66patients accorded with the including criteria was randomly divided into the treatment group and control group,33patients in each. In the treatment group, patients were administered with acupuncture on JiaJi Points, MTrPs, and other relative acupoints. In the control group, patients were injected with5%lidocaine in less than3myofascial trigger points. Patients in both groups were administered with5therapies as a course of treatment. Before the course and after the3rd and the5th treatment, the SF-MPQ, Oswestry Index and pressure threshold were evaluated to observe the clinical effect. Side effects occured in the research were observed and recorded as well.Results30patients in each group,60patients in total completed the study, the data statistics implied:1.At the beginning of the research, the two groups had no significant difference on basic information including age and duration, and the baseline data including the SF-MPQ, oswestry disability index and the pressure threshold.2. On the score of the short-form pain questionnaire (SF-MPQ), the treatment group had a decrease at the end of the3rd treatment (13.43±6.62) in compare with beginning(25.97±10.12). The difference was significant (t=14.95, P=0.00<0.01). At the end of the5th treatment, the score was (4.80±4.72). It had a significant difference with the score of that of the beginning (t=10.87, P=0.01<0.01) and the end of the3rd treatment (t=13.79, P=0.00<0.01)Correspondingly, the control group had a decrease at the end of the3rd treatment (13.87±5.06) in compare with beginning(27.17±8.58). The difference was significant (t=12.26, P=0.00<0.01). At the end of the5th treatment, the score was (5.10±4.44). It had a significant difference with the score of that of the beginning(t=14.49, P=0.00<0.01) and the end of the3rd treatment (t=15.64, P=0.00<0.01)At the end of the3rd treatment, the scores of the two groups had no significant difference (t=-0.285, P=0.78>0.05). The scores at the end of the5th treatment had no significant difference either (t=-0.254, P=0.80>0.05)Within the form there was affective related questionare. On that section, the treatment group had a decrease at the end of the3rd treatment (1.83±2.18) in compare with beginning(4.50±3.80). The difference was significant (t=6.09, P=0.00<0.01). At the end of the5th treatment, the score was (0.70±1.78). It had a significant difference with the score of that of the beginning (t=6.60, P=0.01<0.01) and the end of the3rd treatment (t=4.41, P=0.00<0.01).Correspondingly, the control group had a decrease at the end of the3rd treatment (1.73±1.64) in compare with beginning (4.27±2.91). The difference was significant (t=5.96, P=0.00<0.01). At the end of the5th treatment, the score was(0.70±1.78). It had a significant difference with the score of that of the beginning (t=-7.26, P=0.00<0.01) and the end of the3rd treatment (t=-6.27, P=0.00<0.01)At the end of the3rd treatment, the scores of the two groups had no significant difference (t=0.20, P=0.84>0.05). The scores at the end of the5th treatment had no significant difference either(t=0.30, P=0.76>0.05)The result impled that both treatment can release the pain and resolve the mental disorder induced by pain, and the effect was competitive.3. On the score of the oswestry disability index (ODI), the treatment group had a decrease at the end of the3rd treatment (7.80±5.84) in compare with beginning(16.43±8.85). The difference was significant(t=11.52, P=0.00<0.01). At the end of the5th treatment, the score was (3.47±4.42). It had a significant difference with the score of that of the beginningt=10.87, P=0.01<0.01) and the end of the3rd treatment (t=8.60, P=0.00<0.01)Correspondingly, the control group had a decrease at the end of the3rd treatment (9.13±5.47) in compare with beginning (19.27±9.29). The difference was significant (t=9.92, P=0.00<0.01). At the end of the5th treatment, the score was (3.63±4.05). It had a significant difference with the score of that of the beginning (t=10.14, P=0.00<0.01) and the end of the3rd treatment (t=8.53, P=0.00<0.01)At the end of the3rd treatment, the scores of the two groups had no significant difference (t=-0.91, P=0.37>0.05). The scores at the end of the5th treatment had no significant difference either (t=-0.15, P=0.88>0.05).The result impled that both treatment can release the pain and improve the patients’quality of life.4. On the value of the pain perception threshold (PPDT), the treatment group had an increase at the end of the3rd treatment (3.44±0.87) in compare with beginning (2.11±0.65). The difference was significant (t=-13.65, P=0.00<0.01). At the end of the5th treatment, the score was (5.68±1.20). It had a significant difference with the score of that of the beginning(t=-18.23, P=0.01<0.01) and the end of the3rd treatment (t=-13.16, P=0.00<0.01).Correspondingly, the control group had an increase at the end of the3rd treatment (3.16±9.34) in compare with beginning (1.80±0.66). The difference was significant (t=-12.69, P=0.00<0.01). At the end of the5th treatment, the score was (5.07±1.24). It had a significant difference with the score of that of the beginning(t=-16.97, P=0.00<0.01) and the end of the3rd treatment (t=-16.20, P=0.00<0.01).At the end of the3rd treatment, the scores of the two groups had no significant difference (t=2.02, P=0.48>0.05). The scores at the end of the 5th treatment had no significant difference either (t=2.68, P=0.06>0.05).On the value of the pain tolerance threshold(PPTO), the treatment group had an increase at the end of the3rd treatment (4.17±1.00) in compare with beginning(2.72±0.67). The difference was significant (t=-12.33, P=0.00<0.01). At the end of the5th treatment, the score was(6.36±1.13). It had a significant difference with the score of that of the beginning(t=-21.67, P=0.01<0.01) and the end of the3rd treatment (t=-17.54, P=0.00<0.01).Correspondingly, the control group had an increase at the end of the3rd treatment (4.02±1.37) in compare with beginning (2.40±0.75). The difference was significant (t=-12.17, P=0.00<0.01). At the end of the5th treatment, the score was (5.92±1.31). It had a significant difference with the score of that of the beginning (t=-19.62, P=0.00<0.01) and the end of the3rd treatment (t=-18.07, P=0.00<0.01).At the end of the3rd treatment, the scores of the two groups had no significant difference (t=1.43, P=0.30>0.05). The scores at the end of the5th treatment had no significant difference either (t=2.26, P=0.16>0.05).The result above impled that both treatment can release the scale of pain objectively.5.2patients of controlled group reported side effect of nausea and insomnia, which can get normal automatically. Patients of treatment group did not report any side effects. So we can conclude that acupuncture on Jiaji is a safe method of treating MPS.Conclusion1.Throught relieving pain, releasing mental disorder associated with the pain and improving quality of life, acupuncture on JiaJi Points as an effective and simple therapy on dorsal myofascial pain syndrome.2. Compared eith the Lidicaine blocking thearpy, this treatment avoided the side effects like muscle tissue damage and allergy. So we can imply that acupuncture on JiaJi Points is a safe treatment on MPS. |
PDF Full Text Request