| ObjectiveTo observe the clinical effect of the treatment of the third lumbar transverse process syndrome with fire retaining needle therapy,and to provide an effective basis for the treatment of the third lumbar transverse process syndrome with fire retaining needle therapy.MethodsIn this study,44 patients with the third lumbar transverse process syndrome who were admitted to the inpatient department and outpatient department of the second affiliated hospital of Tianjin university of traditional Chinese medicine from May 2019 to January 2020 and met the standards of sodium exclusion were randomly divided into the treatment group(fire needle retention group)and the control group(puncture transfusion group).Control group : point selection: L2,L4 clipped ridge points,L3 transverse process tenderness point,using the needle infusion method.The treatment group was selected as the control group,L3 transverse process tenderness ignition needle retention,the remaining points were operated as the control group,both groups were once every other day,each time for 20 min,three times a week for treatment,rest for 1 day,7 days for a course of treatment,two consecutive courses of treatment.After the two period of treatment for data analysis,compared two groups of patients before and after 2 weeks treatment is improved the Japanese orthopaedic association(M-JOA)low back pain score,visual analogue scale(VAS)pressure rating,and compared between group and group respectively,analyze the fire retaining needle therapy to treat the clinical curative effect of the third lumbar transverse process syndrome.Results1.General data analysis: before treatment,age,sex,disease course,VAS score and M-JOA score of the two groups were compared,and the difference was not statistically significant(P>0.05).These results indicated that the two groups were comparable before treatment.2.Comparison of M-JOA scores: subjective symptom scores: the subjective symptoms of the patients in the two groups after treatment were compared.The intra-group comparison showed that the subjective symptom scores of the two groups after treatment weresignificantly reduced compared with those before treatment,and the difference was statistically significant(the treatment group: Z=-4.269,P<0.001.Control group: Z=-4.187,P<0.001);The comparison between the groups after treatment showed that the subjective symptom score of the treatment group was lower than that of the control group,with no statistically significant difference(Z=0.857,P=0.392>0.05).Objective signs score: the objective signs of patients in the two groups after treatment were compared.The intra-group comparison showed that the scores of objective signs in the two groups after treatment were significantly reduced compared with those before treatment,and the difference was statistically significant(the treatment group: Z=-4.138,P<0.001.Control group: Z=-4.155,P<0.001);The comparison between groups after treatment showed that the scores of objective signs in the treatment group were lower than those in the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(t=-2.263,P=0.029<0.05).Daily work ability score: compared with the daily work ability of the two groups after treatment,the intra-group comparison showed that the daily work ability score of the two groups after treatment was significantly lower than that before treatment,and the difference was statistically significant(the treatment group: t=13.178,P<0.001.Control group: Z=-4.141,P<0.001);The comparison between groups after treatment showed that the daily work ability score of the treatment group was lower than that of the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(t=-2.394,P=0.021<0.05).Total M-JOA score: the M-JOA score of the patients in the two groups after treatment was compared.The intra-group comparison showed that the m-joa score of the two groups after treatment was significantly reduced compared with that before treatment,and the difference was statistically significant(treatment group: Z=-4.116,P<0.001.Control group:t=18.874,P<0.001).The comparison between groups after treatment showed that m-joa score in the treatment group was lower than that in the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(t=-2.057,P=0.046<0.05).3.Comparison of VAS scores: VAS scores of patients in the two groups after treatment were compared,and intra-group comparison showed that VAS scores of the two groups after treatment were significantly reduced compared with those before treatment,and the difference was statistically significant(treatment group: Z=-4.187,P<0.001.Control group:Z=-4.193,P<0.001).Comparison between groups after treatment showed that VAS score in the treatment group was lower than that in the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(Z=2.174,P=0.030<0.05).4.Comparison of comprehensive efficacy: the improvement rate of modified Japanese orthopaedic association low back pain score was used as the standard for efficacy evaluation of this study.After 2 courses of treatment,5 cases were cured,11 cases were significantly effective,5 cases were effective,and 1 case was ineffective,with an effective rate of 95.45%.Healing in 2 cases,7 cases of obvious effect,10 cases of effective effect and 3 cases of ineffective effect in the acupuncture transfusion group were 86.36%.Compared with the two groups after treatment,the curative effect of the treatment group was better than that of the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).ConclusionFire retention needle therapy for the treatment of the third lumbar transverse process syndrome is effective,can improve the patient's lumbar leg pain,waist activities,improve their daily living ability. |
PDF Full Text Request