Acupuncture and Meridian Science Research Center, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, 130-701, Republic of Korea.
Complement Ther Med. 2011 Jan;19 Suppl 1:S8-S12. doi: 10.1016/j.ctim.2010.09.002. Epub 2010 Oct 14.
A non-penetrating sham needle has been considered as a reliable control treatment in the field of acupuncture research. However, some concerns with regard to the credibility of sham needles have also been raised. We investigated whether there were differences in biomechanical properties and acupuncture sensation ratings in the process of needling between verum acupuncture (VA) and sham acupuncture (SA).
To quantify biomechanical force during needling in a cross-over design, we used a computer-controlled needling system. Fourteen participants received VA or SA at acupuncture point LI4, with no visual impact. They were asked to complete an acupuncture sensation form, including penetration, acute pain and DeQi sensations, and to identify the needling type they received.
We found that there was a significant difference in insertion force between VA and SA (68.5 ± 12.2 vs. 27.2 ± 3.9 gf; p < 0.001). Participants clearly distinguished between the two kinds of stimulation and rated higher sensory ratings in the VA session (penetration sensation: 4.9 ± 3.1 vs. 1.7 ± 2.3, acute pain: 4.9 ± 2.7 vs. 1.9 ± 2.6, respectively; p < 0.01).
Our findings demonstrate that differential biomechanical forces such as insertion and pullout force contribute to the sensation of real and non-penetrating sham needles.
非穿透性假针在针灸研究领域已被认为是一种可靠的对照治疗方法。然而,对于假针的可信度也存在一些担忧。我们研究了在针刺过程中,真针刺(VA)和假针刺(SA)之间的生物力学特性和针刺感觉评分是否存在差异。
为了在交叉设计中量化针刺过程中的生物力学力,我们使用了计算机控制的针刺系统。14 名参与者在没有视觉影响的情况下接受 LI4 穴位的 VA 或 SA 治疗。他们被要求填写一份针刺感觉表,包括穿透感、急性疼痛和得气感,并识别他们所接受的针刺类型。
我们发现 VA 和 SA 之间的插入力有显著差异(68.5 ± 12.2 与 27.2 ± 3.9 gf;p < 0.001)。参与者清楚地区分了两种刺激,并在 VA 治疗中给出了更高的感觉评分(穿透感:4.9 ± 3.1 与 1.7 ± 2.3;急性疼痛:4.9 ± 2.7 与 1.9 ± 2.6;均 p < 0.01)。
我们的发现表明,插入和拔出力等不同的生物力学力有助于真实和非穿透性假针的感觉。