| Objective:Acupuncture at the corresponding point in the abdomen combined with waist movements and cross-contrast changes in the intervention method are used to conclude the effectiveness of the main symptoms and the improvement of the complications.At the same time,check whether the waist-related movements have a synergistic improvement in the main symptoms.,complication.A more comprehensive treatment method for the clinical treatment of chronic non-specific low back pain was obtained.Methods:A single-blind cross-controlled study was conducted.The study objects were from June 2019 to February 2020.Outpatient clinic of Jiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine and outpatient clinic of Chengdu First Orthopaedic Hospital recruited 108 patients with chronic non-specific low back pain.According to the diagnostic criteria and inclusion criteria,etc.The patients were coded according to the order of their visits and randomly divided into abdominal acupuncture on the same day group,abdominal acupuncture first after exercise group,and abdominal acupuncture first group using random number tables.The three groups of patients received abdominal acupuncture and William lumbar flexion therapy,only the intervention method was different in time and date.Patients in the three groups were evaluated for clinical effects before and 5 days and 10 days after the intervention.VAS score,JOA score,ODI score,lumbar anteflexion(MMS)and expectation and treatment confidence questionnaire(ETCS)were used to evaluate the clinical treatment effect.Results:1.Comparison between groupsAfter 10 days of intervention in the three groups,the improvement rate was 88.89%in group A,72.22%in group B,and 75.00%in group C.The improvement rate of patients in group A was higher than that of groups B and C,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05);the improvement rate of patients in group C was higher than that of group B,but the difference was not statistically significant(P>0.05).After 5 days of intervention,the VAS scores of group A patients were lower than those of group B and group C,and the comparison was statistically significant(P<0.05);but the comparison between group B and group C was not statistically significant(P<0.05).After 10 days of intervention,the VAS scores of the three groups were statistically significant(F=5.671,P=0.005);the VAS scores of group B and group C were higher than those of group A,and the comparison was statistically significant(P<0.05);group C It was higher than group B,but the difference was not statistically significant(P>0.05).After 5 days of intervention,for the JOA,the comparison between group A and group B and group C was statistically significant(P<0.05),and the comparison between group B and group C was not statistically significant(P>0.05).After 10 days of intervention,the JOA scores of the three groups were statistically significant(F=9.709,P=0.000);the JOA scores of group B and group C were lower than those of group A,and the comparison was statistically significant(P<0.05);group C The JOA score was lower than that in group B,but there was no statistically significant difference(P<0.05).After 5 days of intervention,the ODI scores of group A patients were lower than those of group B and group C,and the comparison was statistically significant(P<0.05);but the comparison between group B and group C was not statistically significant(P>0.05).After 10days of intervention,the ODI scores of the three groups were statistically significant(F=11.149,P=0.005);the ODI scores of group B and C were higher than those of group A,and the comparison was statistically significant(P<0.05);group C It was higher than group B,but the difference was not statistically significant(P>0.05).After 5 days of intervention,for the MMS,the comparison of the three groups was not statistically significant(P<0.05);after 10days of intervention,the MMS scores of the three groups of patients were not statistically significant before and after the intervention(P>0.05).The ETCS1 and ETCS4 scores of the three groups were not statistically significant(P>0.05);the total scores of the ETCS2,ETCS3,and ETCS of the three groups were statistically significant(P<0.05),and the scores of group A were significantly better than those of group B and Group C(P<0.05).After 5 days of intervention,there were 14 cases of complications and adverse reactions in group A,including2 cases of dizziness,4 cases of exacerbation of low back pain,2 cases of neck and shoulder pain,4 cases of fatigue,and 2 cases of acupuncture infection;complications and adverse reactions of group B patients 12 cases,including dizziness in 2 cases,back pain in 5 cases,neck and shoulder pain in 2 cases,and acupuncture site infection in 3 cases;group C patients had 12 complications and adverse reactions,including 4 cases of back pain exacerbation,1case of neck and shoulder pain,and fatigue 7 cases;the difference was not statistically significant(x~2=1.264,P=0.255).After 10 days of intervention,there were 15 cases of complications and adverse reactions in group B,including dizziness in 2 cases,back pain increased in 5 cases,neck and shoulder pain in 2 cases,acupuncture site infection in 3 cases,and fatigue in 3 cases;group C patients had complications and adverse reactions.There were18 cases,including 3 cases of dizziness,3 cases of low back pain,3 cases of neck and shoulder pain,6 cases of fatigue,and 3 cases of acupuncture infection.The comparison was statistically significant(x~2=6.245,P=0.038).2.Intra-group comparisonThe comparison of VAS scores before intervention in the three groups was not statistically significant(P>0.05).Compared with the pre-intervention,the VAS scores of the three groups were all lower(P<0.05).There was no significant difference in the JOA score between the three groups of patients before intervention(P>0.05).Compared with the pre-intervention,the JOA scores of the three groups were all increased(P<0.05).There was no significant difference in ODI scores between the three groups before intervention(P>0.05).Compared with the pre-intervention,the ODI scores of the three groups were all lower(P<0.05).Compared with before intervention,the MMS scores of the three groups were increased,and the comparison was statistically significant(P<0.05).Conclusion:1.The intervention of acupuncture alone and the intervention of lumbar exercise are effective,the difference is not obvious.2.Acupuncture at the corresponding point on the abdomen and lumbar exercise on the same day can effectively improve the main symptoms of non-specific low back pain and the complications during the treatment,and improve the functional status of the lumbar spine.3.The waist-related exercise has the main symptom of synergistic improvement,but doesnot have the synergistic improvement of complications and adverse reactions duringtreatment. |
PDF Full Text Request