| ObjectiveTo objectively evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of low back pain of lubar intervertebral disc protrusion with Jing-moxibustion compared to grain-shape moxibustion in order to evaluate two kinds of moxibustion treatment of low back pain of lubar intervertebral disc protrusion efficacy difference objectively.Methods70 cases of lumbago with low back pain of lubar intervertebral disc protrusion who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled in the acupuncture department of Guangdong Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medical and randomly divided into Jing-moxibustion group and grain-shape moxibustion group with 35 cases in each group.A:EX-BL20、BL28、ST25、DU3、DU4、BL13(left)、BL(right)、BL40(left).B:BL23、BL25、ST26、RN9、RN6、BL(right)、BL19(left)、BL40(right).The selected acupoints were the same in 2 groups.Points were used interchangeably.The Jing-moxibustion group adopted the i-column with the diameter of 2mm and the height of 3mm at the bottom of the tablet,until the remaining 1/4 of the column was burned until the patient felt burning,and removed the ileum after repeated burning.Grain-shape moxibustion group with the specifications for the bottom diameter of 5mm,8mm high Ai column,until the Ai column burning to the remaining 1/2,until the patient felt a slight burning pain when removing the Ai column,replace the other repeated operation,local Fluffy skin flush for the degree.Treatment for 35 days,1 week 2 times,interval greater than 2 days,each alternating selection of a group of acupuncture points.A total of 10 treatments completed,completed 8 times is a valid case.JOA Scale was applied for the primary outcome measure while Short Form McGill Pain Scale as secondary outcome measures,TESS as a safety indicators.3 evaluating point:before treatment,at the end of treatment,one month after the end of treatment.Measurement results used SPSS18.0 statistical analysis software.Result1.The trial included 65 cases of subjects,Jing-moxibustion group included 33 cases of subjects while Grain-shape moxibustion group included 32 cases of subjects.5 of dropped out.2.There was no significant difference in gender,age,course of disease,education level and TCM dialectical classification between the two groups(P=0.804、P =0.462、P=0.302、P =0.498、P =0.395).There was no significant difference between the two groups in JOA,McGill scale and VAS scores before treatment(P =0.833、P =0.450、P =0.745).The above results suggest that the two groups of baseline levels are basically the same,comparable.3.JOA ScaleAfter treatment,the two groups of patients at the end of the JOA scale scores were increased compared with the pre-treatment trend,a 30-day follow-up showed a downward trend.There was significant difference between the two groups at the end of treatment(P<0.01).At 30 days of follow-up,the difference between the two groups was statistically significant(P=0.002).Comparisons within groups: The groups of Jing-moxibustion and Grain-shape moxibustion at the end of the two groups were compared with those before treatment,and were statistically significant at 30 days of follow-up(P<0.01).Repeated measures analysis of variance(ANOVA): There were significant differences in time between the two groups(P<0.001).There were significant differences in grouping(P = 0.014)and interaction between time and grouping(P=0.014).4.McGill Pain ScaleAfter treatment,the total score of McGill’s pain scale at the end of the two groups showed a downward trend compared with that before treatment,and all of them showed a rising trend after 30 days of follow-up.Comparison between groups: At the end of treatment,the difference between groups was statistically significant(P=0.016);at 30 days of follow-up,the difference between groups was statistically significant(P=0.034).Comparisons within groups: The groups of Jing-moxibustion and Grain-shape moxibustion at the end of the two groups were compared with those before treatment,and were statistically significant at 30 days of follow-up(P <0.01).Repeated measures ANOVA: There was a significant difference in time between the two groups(P<0.01).There was no significant difference between the two groups(P=0.124).There was no interaction between time and grouping factors(P=0.090).5.VAS ScaleAfter treatment,VAS scores at the end of the two groups showed a downward trend compared with that before treatment,and showed a rising trend at 30 days of follow-up.Comparison between groups: At the end of treatment,the difference between groups was statistically significant(P=0.028);at 30 days of follow-up,the difference between groups was statistically significant(P=0.038).Comparisons within groups: The groups of Jing-moxibustion and Grain-shape moxibustion at the end of the two groups were compared with those before treatment,and were statistically significant at 30 days of follow-up(P <0.01).Repeated measures analysis of variance(ANOVA): There were significant differences in time between the two groups(P<0.01).There was no significant difference between the two groups(P=0.156).There was no interaction between time and grouping factors(P=0.088).6.Total effective rateAt the end of the treatment,the effective rate among Jing-moxibustion group and grain-shape moxibustion group were 90.91%、71.88%;The difference between the two groups was statistically significant(P<0.01).30 days follow-up,the effective rate among two groups were 66.67%、40.63%;The differences between two groups was statistically significant(P=0.013).7.Evaluation of SafetyA total of 4 adverse events(mild)occurred in this study.No side effects were observed in the TESS scale due to improper handling or patient stress.Shows fewer adverse reactions,Jing-moxibustion treatment is generally a safe treatment.Conclusion1.Jing-moxibustion、grain-shape moxibustion treatment of low back pai n of lubar intervertebral disc protrusion have curative effect,Jingmoxibustion is better than grain-shape moxibustion.2.In the JOA,McGill,VAS scale score improvement,Jing-moxibustion is better than grain-shape moxibustion. |
PDF Full Text Request