Zhao Feng, Cao Dong-bo, Yuan Yi-qin, Luo Jian, Wen Yan-yun, Wang Yue, Yu Jie
Department of the First Affiliated Hospital of Hunan University of TCM, Changsha 410007, China.
Zhongguo Zhen Jiu. 2012 Jun;32(6):507-10.
To compare the difference in the clinical efficacy on nonspecific low back pain (NLBP) treated with the dragon-tiger fighting needling method, the uniform reinforcing-reducing method and the intermediate frequency physiotherapy.
Ninety cases of NLBP were randomly divided into a dragon-tiger fighting needling group (group A), an uniform reinforcing-reducing needling group (group B) and an intermediate frequency physiotherapy group (group C), 30 cases in each one. In the group A, the dragon-tiger fighting needling method was used. In the group B, the uniform reinforcing-reducing method was applied. Two groups of acupoints were prescribed. One group included Shenshu (BL 23), Dachangshu (BL 25), Weizhong (BL 40) and Ashi points. The other group included Qihaishu (BL 24), Guanyuanshu (BL 26), Kunlun (BL 60), Yaoyangguan (GV 3). These two groups of acupoints were used alternatively in the above two groups. In the group C, the intermediate frequency physiotherapy was adopted in the pain area of the lumbar region. The treatment was given once per day in each group. Six treatments made one session. Totally, 2 sessions were required. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODD and the clinical efficacy were observed in each group.
The scores of VAS and ODI were reduced obviously after treatment in each group (P < 0.05, P < 0.01). The score reducing in the group A was much more remarkable than those in the other two groups (all P < 0.05). The clinical curative rate was 30.0% (9/30), 23.3% (7/30) and 16.7% (5/30) in the group A, the group B and the group C, respectively. In comparison, the clinical efficacy in the group A was superior to that in either of the other groups (all P< 0.05).
The dragon-tiger fighting needling method achieves the much better efficacy on NLBP compared with either the uniform reinforcing-reducing method or the intermediate frequency physiotherapy. It is one of the more effective needling method for analgesia.
比较龙虎交战针法、提插补泻法与中频理疗治疗非特异性下腰痛（NLBP）的临床疗效差异。
将90例NLBP患者随机分为龙虎交战针刺组（A组）、提插补泻针刺组（B组）和中频理疗组（C组），每组30例。A组采用龙虎交战针法；B组采用提插补泻法，两组均选用两组穴位，一组为肾俞（BL 23）、大肠俞（BL 25）、委中（BL 40）及阿是穴，另一组为气海俞（BL 24）、关元俞（BL 26）、昆仑（BL 60）、腰阳关（GV 3），上述两组穴位在A、B两组中交替使用。C组在腰部疼痛区域采用中频理疗。每组每天治疗1次，6次为1个疗程，共进行2个疗程。观察每组的视觉模拟评分法（VAS）、Oswestry功能障碍指数（ODI）及临床疗效。
各组治疗后VAS、ODI评分均明显降低（P<0.05，P<0.01），A组评分降低更显著，与其他两组比较差异均有统计学意义（均P<0.05）。A组、B组、C组的临床治愈率分别为30.0%（9/30）、23.3%（7/30）、16.7%（5/30），A组临床疗效优于其他两组（均P<0.05）。
与提插补泻法和中频理疗相比，龙虎交战针法治疗NLBP疗效更佳，是较为有效的镇痛针刺方法之一。
