Objective:Through evaluating the clinical efficacy in treating acne by means of fire needle in comparison to the standard Western medical therapy, efficiency variance was analyzed in this study. Judging from the different efficacies of these two therapies, most-effective treatment was optimized, and promoted the clinical use of the tested-effective approach and the technical specification. Further researches would be focused on the development a standard therapy with safe-efficacy and suitable to promot.Methods:51 acne patients in line with the formulated terms were selected and stochastically divided into 2groups, i.e.25cases in treatment group, and 26 cases in contrast group. Patients in treatment group were all treated by means of the fire needle, and the standard Western medical therapy was used in contrast group. The primary and secondary symptoms of the two groups were screened after respective treatments. During the healing process, photographing, scoring and grade calculation, and efficacy evaluation was conducted after full treatments.Results:In the treatment group,24 patients participated in the whole process completely, and during the observing course,8(33.33%) cases were cured,12(50%) conspicuously effective,3(12.5%) relatively effective and 1(4.17%) ineffective. While in the contrast group,24patients complement the trial, including 3 cases (12.5%) were cured,6(25%) conspicuously effective,10(41.7%) relatively effective and 2(8.33%) ineffective. The total effectiveness rate of the treatment group, contrast group were 95.83% and 87.5%. The clinical observation indicated:both the therapies had obvious effectiveness in acne treatment, however, fire needle showed significant advantage in full recovery and conspicuously effective contrast to the standard Western medical therapy.Conclusions:Measures of fire needle and standard Western medical therapy were both obviously effective in acne healing, and fire needle showed significant advantage in full recovery, as well as low adverse effect. |