| ObjectiveIn this study,by observing and analyzing the difference of the curative effect between Tianzong dredging tubercle group(treatment group)and ordinary acupuncture group(control group),we objectively evaluated the curative effect of dredging tubercle of Tianzong on liver-qi stagnation type breast hyperplasia,which not only provided evidence-based basis for the clinical treatment of breast hyperplasia,but also a new safe and effective treatment of traditional Chinese medicine.MethodsUsing a randomized controlled study method,60 patients with a diagnosis of hyperplasia of the liver-qi stagnation type were divided into two groups:30 for treatment group and 30 for control group.The control group was treated with Tianzong general acupuncture combined with body acupuncture.The treatment group was treated with dredging tubercle of Tianzong combined with body acupuncture.Both groups were treated twice a week,6 treatments are a course of treatment,a total of two courses of treatment,treatment during menstruation was suspended.The two groups were scored in the three aspects of breast condition including the degree of breast pain patients,the size of breast lumps and systemic symptoms at three moments which contains before treatment,after the first course of treatment and after the end of the treatment.The scale used was referenced to the scale developed at the eighth meeting of the Breast Disease Professional Committee of the Chinese Medical Surgery Society in 2002.Using SPSS18.0 software to build the database and statistical analysis of the collected data.Results30 patients with no shedding cases in treatment group,2 cases of 30 casesof control group shedding,shedding cases have not completed all treatment courses and their results are not included in the statistical results.The final data included 30 cases in the treatment group and 28 cases in the control group.1.Baseline condition: The two groups in the age,duration,menstrual cycle,baseline score before treatment with balanced baseline data,the two groups are comparable.2.The breast pain: The control group before treatment score was 23.40 ±3.29,8.36 ± 3.40 after treatment,the treatment group before treatment score was 23.00 ± 3.18,after treatment was 7.20 ± 2.44,there was no significant difference between the two groups before treatment and they were comparable.The two groups before and after treatment were compared within the group,P values were less than 0.01,the difference was statistically significant;score difference between the two groups after treatment P> 0.05,the difference was not statistically significant.Both groups can improve the symptoms of breast pain,the two groups had no significant difference in the improvement of breast pain.3.Breast lump condition: The control group before treatment score was12.30 ± 2.77,after treatment was 9.21 ± 4.96,the treatment group before treatment score was 12.20 ± 2.94,after treatment was 6.70 ± 5.15,there was no significant difference between the two groups before treatment and they were comparable.Before and after treatment were compared between the two groups,P values were less than 0.01,the difference was statistically significant;after treatment,the difference between the two groups P <0.05,the difference was statistically significant.Both groups can improve breast lumps,the improvement of the treatment group breast lumps is greater than the control group.4.Systemic symptoms: The control group before treatment score was 10.87± 2.22,after treatment was 7.21 ± 1.85,the treatment group before treatment score was 11.27 ± 2.27,after treatment was 7.63 ± 1.85,there was no significant difference between the two groups before treatment and they were comparable.The two groups before and after treatment were compared within the group,P values were less than 0.01,the difference was statistically significant;score difference between the two groups after treatment P> 0.05,the difference was not statistically significant.Both groups can improve thesystemic symptoms,the two groups had no significant difference in the improvement of the systemic symptoms.5.Comparison of efficacy between the two groups after 1course of treatment:The total score after the first course of treatment was calculated,and the corresponding improvement rate was obtained.There were 28 cases in the control group,of which 0 cases were cured,3 cases markedly effective,13 effective and 12 ineffective Accounting for 0%,10.71%,46.43% and 42.86% of the total respectively.There were 30 cases in the treatment group,of which 0 cases were cured,9 cases markedly effective,16 effective and 5 ineffective,accounting for 0%,30.00%,53.33% and 16.67% of the total respectively.The total effective rate of the control group was 16 cases,the total effective rate was 57.14%.The total effective rate was 83.33% in the treatment group.The total effective rate in the treatment group was higher than that in the control group.The improvement rate of the two groups was tested by the rank sum test(P <0.05).There was a statistically significant difference in the effective rate between the two groups,and the efficacy of the treatment solution group was better than that of the control group.6.Comparison of efficacy between the two groups after 2 courses of treatment: The total scores of the two groups after the two courses of treatment were calculated,and the corresponding improvement rate was obtained.In the control group,there were 28 cases,of which 0 cases were cured,5 cases markedly effective,17 effective and 6 ineffective Accounting for 0%,17.86%,60.71% and 21.43% of the total respectively.There were 30 cases in the treatment group,of which 0 cases recovered,9 cases markedly effective,18 cases effective and 3 cases ineffective,accounting for 0%,30.00%,60.00%and 10.00% of the total respectively.The total effective rate of the control group was 22 cases,the total effective rate was 78.57%.The total effective rate was 90.00% in the treatment group.The total effective rate in the treatment group was higher than that in the control group.The improvement rate of the two groups was tested by the rank sum test(P <0.05).There was no significant difference between the two groups,the control group and the treatment group with similar efficacy.ConclusionsThe treatment group and control group have improved in the breast pain,breast lumps and systemic symptoms this three aspects after treatment.Bothgroups had similar improvements in breast pain and systemic concomitant symptoms,and the treatment group was superior to the control group in improving breast lumps.In terms of total effective rate,the curative effect of treatment group after one course of treatment is better than that of control group.The curative effect of control group and treatment group after two courses of treatment is comparable,which showed that the treatment method of the treatment group worked faster on patients with mammary gland hyperplasia.Dredging tubercle method has a larger amount of acupuncture stimulation than conventional ones,is simple and safe to operate,and has quick results,with clinical application and promotion of value. |
PDF Full Text Request