Clinical Study Of Using Du Hydraulicfor Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

Objective: This paper is under the guidance of my tutor, Professor WangJinbang, we will observe the efficacy applying Du channel hydraulic therapieson lumbar spinal stenosis by applying Du channel hydraulic therapies onlumbar spinal stenosis to explore the mechanism of Du hydraulic therapy, itspurpose is providing the foundation of clinical indication for the enrichmentand development of Du hydraulic therapies and providing a simple andeffective new treatment for the conservative treatment of lumbar spinalstenosis.Methods:To select the90patients in strict accordance with the diagnostic criteria forlumbar spinal stenosis and inclusion and exclusion criteria and divide theminto three groups: Du hydraulic group, caudal injection group, the controlgroup according to treatment sequence making random card1:1n=30, for Duhydraulic group male18, female12, age43to75years, an average of62.2years, duration of1.5to8years; caudal injection group,17men, women13,age45to75years old, with an average of62.7years old, duration of1-9years;control group, male17, female13, age41to74years, with an average of61.3years of age, duration of1.5to9years.Du hydraulic Group: Patients were headed high to the prone position, thelower abdomen booster5cm, Mozhun sacral hiatus and make a tag. Strictaseptic routine disinfection, local anesthesia, sacral hiatus with5mLdisposable syringe (the7th needles) piercing the sacrococcygeal ligament witha sense of frustration, tip sacral lumen Withdrawing blood and cerebrospinalfluid. The Danhong injection10ml, injection100mg of vitamin B1,2%lidocaine injection of100mg dexamethasone10mg,0.9%saline40ml inhaledtwo20ml syringe, connect puncture needle is injected under pressure into the sacral canal in. After injection, the waist pull reach out law and the press weretreated with waist pulling the chattering techniques to increase the hydrauliceffect.Caudal injection groups: Patients were head high prone position, thelower abdomen booster5cm Mozhun the sacral hiatus and marked by strictaseptic technique, routine disinfection and local anesthesia with5mLdisposable syringe (the7th needles) piercing sacral hiatus, there is a sense offrustration, needlepoint withdrawing blood and cerebrospinal fluid in thesacral lumen, through the sacrococcygeal ligament. Injection100mg ofvitamin B1,2%lidocaine injection100mg dexamethasone10mg,0.9%saline20mL inhalation20ml syringe, connect puncture needle is slowly injected intothe sacral canal. Control group: Patients were head high prone position, thelower abdomen booster5cm Mozhun the sacral hiatus to mark, in strictaccordance with local anesthesia aseptic technique, routine disinfectionpiercing caudal5mL disposable syringe (the7th needles) hiatus,sacrococcygeal ligament with a sense of frustration, to determine the point of aneedle in the sacral lumen Withdrawing without the blood and cerebrospinalfluid. Injection100mg of vitamin B1,2%lidocaine injection of100mg, thedexamethasone injection10mg,0.9%saline40mL inhalation of two20mlsyringe, connect puncture needle pressurized injection caudal. Each groupinjects1time in five days,4injections is a clinical cycle, the cycle is20daysfor each group. After a course of treatment, keeping scores for the symptom ofits therapeutic effect.Select intermittent claudication, the signs and symptoms of low back pain,sciatica, activity of the lumbar spine, lumbar hyperextension test knee tendonreflex Achilles tendon reflex change skin hypoesthesia, weakness, lower limbmuscle atrophy as evaluation indicators to compare the three group for thetotal efficacy,single symptoms, signs and analyze the results to get theconclusion.Results:1After the treatment, three groups of patients did not show significantchanges in blood count, blood sugar, liver and kidney function, electrocardiogram and other tests.2Symptomatic efficacy comparison: at the end of the full course oftreatment, for the30patients with Du hydraulic treatment group,5cases werecured,13cases markedly effective,11case effective, and1case not effective,the total effective rate was96.67%; for the caudal injection treatment group of30patients three cases were cured,11cases were markedly effective,13caseeffective, and3cases not effective, the total effective rate was90.00%; forcontrol treatment group of30patients two cases were cured,10casesmarkedly effective,14case effective and4cases not effective, the totaleffective rate was86.67%. The difference of the total efficiency rate betweenthe Three-group is (P<0.05). Du hydraulic therapy is superior to the caudalinjection group and the control group.3Treatment efficacy of individual symptoms and signs before and aftercomparison: the efficacy of the symptoms of intermittent claudication, lowerback pain, sciatica,lumbar activity differences(P<0.05);lumbar hyperextensiontest knee tendon reflexes changes, changes in the Achilles tendon reflex, skinhypoesthesia symptoms are similar efficacy, the difference was not statisticallysignificant (P>0.05); for Achilles tendon reflex changes, weakness, lower limbmuscle atrophy symptoms, three groups of patients were not improved afterthe treatment.Conclusion:1Du hydraulic therapies can treat lumbar spinal stenosis and improvetheir clinical symptoms and signs and it is safe, effective,reliable and worthyof clinical promotion.2Du barrier or dystrophy are in close contact with the rising of manysymptoms of lumbar spinal stenosis. Therefore we have a new idea anddirection to treat lumbar spinal stenosis by modulating Du departure,nourishing Du therapy.