| ObjectiveThrough established unified acupuncture and moxibustion points, the clinical effect of different needle-retaining time in treating scapulohumeral periarthritis was observed. An evaluation based on the performances of different needle-retaining time patterns was come out. Finally, an optimal needle-retaining pattern was recommended for further clinical reference.Methods90 patients selected from Tongdetang and Fu Chi clinics, who suffered from scapulohumeral periarthritis that meets the diagnostic criteria and the inclusion criteria for the study of periarthritis. They were randomly allocated to one of three groups, group 1 for 15 minute needle-retaining, group 2 for 30 minute needle-retaining and group 3 for 60 minute needle-retaining. Each group has 30 patients. Each patient of a group had to receive a stipulated treatment programme every day. Ten days for a course, three day break between the first and second treatment courses, a two-month follow-up service after the second treatment course was set up to observe the rebound in recurrence rate. The pain scale measured by MPQ and the functions of shoulder joint measured by an index were recorded in the different treatment phases. The scores were monitored and calculated on their changes. SPSS17.0 was used to undertake statistical analysis. The analysis was focused on the short-term and long-term clinical effect of the three groups.Results1. The ages of the participants range from 43 to 63 with a mean 53.13±5.28, the sickness durations of the participants range from 1 to 15 months with a mean 7.4±3.37. No significant differences were found in gender, age, duration, phase, MPQ and joint functions at the pre-treatment stage as P>0.05 out amongst the three groups.2. After two treatment courses, group 3 recorded 18 patients cured,8 patients markedly effective,2 patients effective,2 patients ineffective, total effective rate is 93.33%. Group 2 recorded 15 patients cured,9 patients markedly effective,3 patients effective,3 patients ineffective, total effective rate is 90%. Group 1 recorded 6 patients cured,7 patients markedly effective,10 patients effective,7 patients ineffective, total effective rate is 76.67%. The clinical efficacy amongst the three groups by statistical test P is 0.008 which is smaller than 0.01 and indicates that the difference is very significant. There is no significant difference between group 3 and group 2 and but there are very significant differences between group 1 and group 2 as well as group 1 and group 3.3. Before the treatment, the means of the MPQ score are 40.93±16.8, 39.17±15.84,40.87±14.27 for group 1, group 2 and group 3 in respectively. The scores of the three groups were markedly declined after the first treatment course, group 1 got 28±15.33, group 2 got 22.1±12.7 and group 3 got 21.23±12.18. The statistical value is P=0<0.01 for each group which shows the treatment has a very prominent improvement on pain relieve in each of the three groups. A significant drop in the MPQ score of each group happened again after the second treatment course, group 1 got 19.1±15.1, group 2 got 9.2±12.4 and group 3 got 8.06±12.59. The statistical value is P=0<0.01 of each group which shows the improvement on pain relieve in each of the three groups was moved on a big step. After the two treatment courses and statistical analysis, P<0.01 came out amongst the three groups means that a very significant difference in the efficacy of treatment exists. There are very significant differences exist between group 3 and group 1 as well as group 2 and group 1 as both Pare smaller than 0.01. No significant difference exists between group 3 and group 2 as P>0.05. No rebound case was recorded in the three groups during the follow up service stage, P>0.05 shows that the efficacy of the treatment could be consolidated in a long time.4. Before the treatment, the means of the function scores are 54.43±18.46, 56.77±17.39,54.53±15.67 for group 1, group 2 and group 3 in respectively. The function scores of the three groups after the first treatment course, group 1 got 68±16.96, group 2 got 75.33±14.13 and group 3 got 76.37±13.6. The statistical value is P=0<0.01 for each group which shows the treatment has a very prominent improvement on the functions of joint in each of the three groups. A significant increase in the score of each group happened again after the second treatment course, group 1 got 78.63±16.78, group 2 got 89.7±13.84 and group 3 got 90.97±14.05. The statistical value is P=0<0.01 of each group shows that the improvement on functions of joint of the three groups was moved on a big step. After the two treatment courses and statistical analysis, P <0.01 come out amongst the three groups means that a very significant difference in the efficacy of treatment exists. There are very significant differences between group 3 and group 1 as well as group 2 and group 1 as P <0.01. No significant difference exists between group 3 and group 2 as P>0.05. No rebound case was recorded in the three groups during the follow up service stage, P>0.05 shows that the efficacy of the treatment could be consolidated in a long time.5. The sustained fixed pain, swelling pain and tenderness pain are the fundamental pains of scapulohumeral periarthritis. The statistical values P of relieving fixed pain and tenderness pain amongst the three groups are 0.055 and 0.074 respectively. Both are greater than 0.05 that there are no significant differences of relieving the two kinds of pains amongst the three groups. The value P of relieving swelling pain amongst the three groups is 0.0104, which is smaller than 0.05. It shows that there is a significant difference of relieving swelling pain amongst the three groups. The value P for the group 3 and group 2 is 0.58 which is greater than 0.05 and shows no difference of relieving swelling pain between the two groups. The value P for group 1 and group 3 is 0.00027 and for group 1 and group 2 is 0.00036, both are smaller than 0.01, it means that group 3 and group 2 are much better than group 1 for relieving swelling pain and the differences are significant.ConclusionAll the three groups in treatment of scapulohumeral periarthritis achieved very significant results, especially in relieving joint pain and improving functions of shoulder. The analysis of recovery rate, MPQ and the functions of shoulder show that group 3 and group 2 are much better than group 1 in healing scapulohumeral periarthritis and the differences are significant. In other words, acupuncture treatment takes a reasonable longer retaining time in scapulohumeral periarthritis will achieve a very prominent result. |
PDF Full Text Request