| ObjectivesTo observe,record and analyze the changes of symptoms and signs of patients with residual pain after lumbar disc herniation after needle knife treatment,to compared with the changes of the residual pain after the conventional therapy,the difference of the effect of the two treatments and the change of the score were analyzed.The mechanism of acupotomy for the treatment of residual pain after lumbar intervertebral disc herniation in the treatment of lumbar intervertebral disc herniation was analyzed and discussed.The scientific basis and experience are provided for clinical treatment.MethodsIn this study,42 patients in Hancheng hospital,the First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiao Tong University from April 2017 to December 2017,were admitted to the hospital of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiao Tong University.They were randomly divided into 2 groups,21 in the experimental group and the other in the control group.Patients in the control group were given blood activating and detumescence and nutritional neurologic drugs.The patients in the experimental group were given acupotomy for 2 weeks on the basis of the treatment of the control group,and divided into 3 treatments.Before treatment,2 weeks after treatment,and follow-up to 1 month after treatment and 3 months after treatment,we observed,recorded and counted the clinical symptoms and signs changes and score statistics of two groups,and compared the efficacy of two treatments.Results1.Comparison of VAS scores:The VAS score of the experimental group was3.14±0.48 before treatment,while the VAS score of the control group was 3.19±0.60 before treatment.After statistical analysis,P=0.78 and P>0.05,it was not statistically significant.The VAS score of the patients in the experimental group was 1.00±0.55,andthe VAS score of the control group was 1.86±0.48 after treatment.After statistical analysis,P=0 and P<0.05,it was statistically significant.Following up for 1 months,the VAS score of the experimental group was 0.86±0.57,and the VAS score of the control group was 1.76±0.62.After statistical analysis,P=0 and P<0.05,it was statistically significant.Following up for 3 months,the VAS score of the experimental group was0.71±0.46,and the VAS score of the control group was 1.71±0.64.After statistical analysis,P=0 and P<0.05,it was statistically significant.The VAS score of the patients in the experimental group was lower than that before the treatment.After statistical analysis,P=0,P<0.05 and there was a statistically significant difference.The VAS score of the experimental group patients following up for 1 month was 0.86±0.57,and to compare with the score of 2 weeks after treatment,P=0.08,P>0.05.It was no statistical significance.The VAS score of the experimental group patients following up for 3 months was 0.71±0.46,and to compare with the score of 1 month of follow-up,P=0.27,P>0.05.The difference was not statistically significant.After treatment,the VAS score in the control group was lower than that before the treatment.After statistical analysis,P=0,P<0.05,and there was a statistically significant difference.The VAS score of the control group patients following up for 1 month was1.76±0.62,and to compare with the score of 2 weeks after treatment,P=0.16,P>0.05.It was no statistical significance.The VAS score of the control group patients following up for 3 months was 1.71±0.64,and to compare with the score of 1 month of follow-up,P=0.33,P>0.05.The difference was not statistically significant.2.Comparison of JOA scores:The JOA score of the experimental group was20.57±2.16 before treatment,while the JOA score of the control group was 20.14±3.20 before treatment.After statistical analysis,P=0.61 and P>0.05,it was not statistically significant.The JOA score of the patients in the experimental group was25.95±1.07,and the JOA score of the control group was 23.14±1.28 after treatment.After statistical analysis,P=0 and P<0.05,it was statistically significant.Following up for 1 months,the JOA score of the experimental group was26.10±1.00,and the JOA score of the control group was 23.33±1.02.After statistical analysis,P=0 and P<0.05,it was statistically significant.Following up for 3 months,the JOA score of the experimental group was 26.19±0.87,and the JOA score of the control group was 23.48±0.81.After statistical analysis,P=0 and P<0.05,it was statistically significant.After treatment,the JOA score of the experimental group was higher than that before the treatment.After statistical analysis,P=0,P<0.05 and there was a statistical difference.The JOA score of the experimental group patients following up for 1 month was 26.10±1.00,and to compare with the score of 2 weeks after treatment,P=0.08,P>0.05.It was no statistical significance.The JOA score of the experimental group patients following up for 3 months was 26.19±0.87 and to compare with the score of 1 month of follow-up,P=0.16,P>0.05.The difference was not statistically significant.After treatment,the JOA score in the control group was higher than that before the treatment.After statistical analysis,P=0,P<0.05,and there was a statistically significant difference.The VAS score of the control group patients following up for 1 month was23.33±1.02,and to compare with the score of 2 weeks after treatment,P=0.10,P>0.05.It was no statistical significance.The JOA score of the control group patients following up for 3 months was 23.48±0.81 and to compare with the score of 1 month of follow-up,P=0.19,P>0.05.The difference was not statistically significant.3.Comparison of clinical improvement rate between the two groups: After treatment,4 patients were cured in the experimental group,10 were markedly effective,5 were effective,2 were ineffective,and the improvement rate was 90.48%.After treatment,the patients in the control group were cured in 2 cases,6 cases were markedly effective,8 cases were effective,5 cases were ineffective,and the improvement rate was 76.19%.After statistical analysis,P=0.04.Follow-up for 1month the patients in the experimental group recovered in 4 cases,10 cases were markedly effective,6 cases were effective,1 case was ineffective,and the improvement rate was 95.24%.Follow-up 1 month in the control group clinical recovery in 2patients,6 markedly effective,effective in 9 patients,ineffective in 4 cases,the improvement rate was 80.95%.After statistical analysis,P=0.04.Follow-up for 3month the patients in the experimental group recovered in 4 cases,10 cases were markedly effective,6 cases were effective,1 case was ineffective,and the improvement rate was 95.24%.Follow-up 3 month in the control group clinical recovery in 2patients,6 markedly effective,effective in 9 patients,ineffective in 4 cases,the improvement rate was 80.95%.After statistical analysis,P=0.04.Conclusion1.Two groups of treatment methods can improve the residual pain after lumbar disc herniation.2.Needle knife therapy is simple,effective,and worthy of clinical application. |
PDF Full Text Request