| ObjectiveTo observe the clinical efficacy of Jin three-needles therapy combined with warm needle and moxibustion for the treatment of root sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation.A randomized controlled trial was conducted in the clinical trial to evaluate the degree of pain before and after treatment in patients with this disease,And improvement in dysfunction,etc.In order to find a treatment method that is safe,effective,simple,has few side effects,and is easy for patients to treat,and provides more effective clinical evidence for acupuncture treatment of this disease.MethodsUsing a random number table method,90 patients with lumbar disc herniation secondary to sciatica were divided into 3 groups,30 in each group.All cases were from the Taipei City United Hospital Linsen Chinese Medicine Kunming Hospital Outpatient Department and acupuncture clinic of the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine.The treatment group was treated with three needles combined with warm needle,the control group I was treated with Jin three-needles and electroacupuncture,and the control group was treated with conventional acupuncture and electroacupuncture.The Jin three-needles were selected from the waist three needles and the sciatic needle.The visual analogue scale(VAS),the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Score(JOA scores)and the Oswestry dysfunction index(ODI)before and after treatment were recorded to treat the patient’s treatment.To evaluate the effectiveness of the three groups of treatments.Results1.Before treatment,the ages were compared by one-way analysis of variance F=0.71,P=0.49(P>0.05);gender comparison was analyzed by contingency table:X2=1.74,P=0.42(P>0.05)The course of disease was analyzed by one-way analysis of variance:F=0.70,P=0.50(P>0.05).There was no statistically significant difference(P>0.05),and the three groups were comparable.2.VAS scores①By one-way analysis of variance,the VAS scores of the three groups before treatment were compared,F=0.43,P=0.65(P>0.05),the difference was not statistically significant,and the three groups were comparable;②By paired t test,the treatment group before and after treatment,t=11.26,P<0.01,the difference was statistically significant;③By paired t test,before and after treatment in group I,t=7.76,P<0.01,the difference was statistically significant;④By paired t test,before and after treatment in group Ⅱ,t=5.57,P<0.01,the difference was statistically significant;⑤By one-way analysis of variance,the VAS scores of the three groups were compared,F=7.88,P<0.01.The treatment group was better than the control groupⅠ(P=0.02<0.05)and the control group Ⅱ(P<0.01).There was no significant difference between the control group Ⅰ and the control group II(P=0.76>0.05).⑥By one-way analysis of variance,the difference of VAS scores between the three groups was compared,F=7.88,P<0.01.Compared with the control group,the treatment group was significantly better than the control group I(P=0.02<0.05)and the control group Ⅱ(P<0.01),there was no significant difference between the control group I and the control group II(P=0.86>0.05).3.JOA score①By one-way analysis of variance,the JOA scores of the three groups before treatment were compared,F=0.07,P=0.93(P>0.05),the difference was not statistically significant,and the three groups were comparable;②By paired t test,the treatment group before and after treatment,t=-12.18,P<0.01,the difference was statistically significant;③By paired t test,before and after treatment in group I,t=-6.38,R<0.01,the difference was statistically significant;④By paired t test,before and after treatment in group II,t=-4.50,P<0.01,the difference was statistically significant;⑤By one-way analysis of variance,the JOA scores of the three groups were compared,F=9.14,P<0.01.Compared with the control group I(P=0.015<0.05)and the control group II(P<0.01),the treatment group was significantly better.There was no significant difference between the control group I and the control group II(P=0.60>0.05).⑥By one-way analysis of variance,the difference of JOA scores between the three groups was compared,F=7.36,P<0.01.Compared with the control group,the treatment group was significantly better than the control group I(P=0.02<0.05)and the control group II(P<0.01).There was no significant difference between the control group I and the control group II(P=1>0.05).4.ODI score①By one-way analysis of variance,the ODI scores of the three groups before treatment were compared,F=0.63,P=0.54(P>0.05),the difference was not statistically significant,and the three groups were comparable;②By paired t test,before and after treatment in the treatment group,t=12.72,P<0.01,the difference was statistically significant;③By paired t test,before and after treatment in group I,t=9.82,P<0.01,the difference was statistically significant;④By paired t test,before and after treatment in group II,t=8.48,P<0.01,the difference was statistically significant;⑤By one-way analysis of variance,the ODI scores of the three groups were compared,F=4.55,P=0.013(P<0.05).The treatment group was significantly better than the control group I(P=0.045<0.05)and the control group II(P=0.02<0.05).There was no significant difference between the control group I and the control group II(P=1>0.05);⑥By one-way analysis of variance,the difference of ODI scores between the three groups was compared,F=6.33,P<0.01.Compared with the control group,the treatment group was significantly better than the control group I(P=0.023<0.01)and the control group II(P<0.01),there was no significant difference between the control group I and the control group II(P=1>0.05).5.Comparison of the overall efficacy of the three groupsAfter treatment,the treatment group was cured in 6 cases,markedly effective in 15 cases,effective in 7 cases,ineffective in 2 cases,total effective rate was 93.33%;control group I was cured in 3 cases,markedly effective in 9 cases,effective in 13 cases,ineffective in 5 cases,total effective rate was 83.33%;control group II:cured in 2 cases,markedly effective In 7 cases,15 cases were effective and 6 cases were ineffective,total effective rate was 80.00%.①By the rank sum test,the treatment group was compared with the control group I,z=-2.25,P=0.02(P<0.05),the difference was significant;②By the rank sum test,the treatment group compared with the control group II,z=-2.997,P<0.01,the difference was significant;③By the rank sum test,the control group I was compared with the control group II,z=-0.76,P=0.45(P>0.05),the difference was not significant.ConclusionJin three-needle therapy combined with warm needle treatment of root sciatica secondary to lumbar disc herniation can significantly reduce pain,improve lumbar function and improve life treatment.The curative effect is better than conventional acupuncture,Jin three-needle combined with electroacupuncture therapy,and There was no obvious adverse reaction during the treatment,and the clinical curative effect was certain and worth promoting. |
PDF Full Text Request