| Objective: This study randomly compared the differences in clinical efficiency of two kinds of treatments(triple puncture+pricking+cupping vs. routine acupuncture) on cervical spondylosis(CS). Severity of neck pain, living conditions and improvement of joint function were observed for accessing the comparisons, aiming at providing new theoretical basis for spreading the triple puncture treatment for CS with its clinical evidence.Method: Except for shedding and exclusion, 62 out of 64 recruited cases were equally randomized into two groups as treatment and control. The treatment group contained 17 females and 14 males of age between 18 and 45 years with disease duration of 12.31±5.72 months. They received triple puncture at points of C2 and C7 spinous process inferior and points 1 cun aside above points were pricked and cupped. The control group were treated with routine acupuncture, with acupoints selection referring to The Theory of Acupuncture and Moxibustion(Chief editor: Wang Hua). There were 16 females and 15 males with age ranging from 22 to 45 years and 12.18±4.96 months duration of disease. The needles were retained for 30 min in each treatment. They received treatment once every two days, 5 treatment as one course. The treatment group were treated with pricking at 1st, 3rd and 5th treatments. Both groups applied a 2-day interval before entering the 2nd course, at the end of when the assessment was made based on the data of overall therapeutic effectiveness, simplified Mc Gill Pain Questionnaire, range of motion(ROM) scoring for CS, and Neck Pain Questionnaire(NPQ) rating scale.Results: 1. Analysis on the sex, age, duration of CS, indices of observation on the patients showed that two groups were suitable for comparison. 2. The P<0.05 outcome of t-test used for comparing pain rating index(PRI) scoring, Visual analogue scores(VAS) data and present pain index(PPI) indices indicated statistical significance and their clinical comparability. The PRI(sensory), PRI(total), VAS data and PPI indices showed significant differences in comparison between the two groups(P<0.05). While no statistical significance was observed in PRI(affective)(P>0.05). 3. T-test used in ROM improvement showed significant differences in flexion, extension, lateroflexion and rotation degree(P<0.01) before and after treatment within both groups. The P<0.05 value in comparisons of extension, lateroflexion and rotation degree between groups after treatment indicated obvious statistical differences. Anteflexion degree comparison showed no statistical significance(P>0.05). 4. P<0.05 values were attained in NPQ scoring comparison before and after treatment within group, showing that the treatments in both groups were effective in attenuating symptoms and life activities. Treatment using triple puncture+pricking+cupping was superior to routine acupuncture in this study according to the difference of NPQ scoring between the two groups(P<0.05). 5. Chi-square test used for total effective rate comparison between the two groups at the end of the two courses showed no statistical difference(P>0.05). Treatment group had superior clinical cure rate to that of control group(P<0.05).Conclusion: 1. The treatment of triple puncture+pricking+cupping was obviously effective in relieving pain and current pain intensity, but no superior to the control group in improving affective discomfort. 2. Both treatments improved anteflexion, back extension, lateroflexion and degree of rotation. The treatment group achieved better outcomes in improving back extension, lateroflexion and rotation, while similar to the control group in increasing anteflexion range. 3. The two therapies in this study were both efficient in relieving neck symptoms and improving life activities. But the triple puncture+pricking+cupping method was clinically superior to routine acupuncture in improvement of neck pain and life quality. |
PDF Full Text Request