Qian J, Xu Wenqi
Zhongguo Zhen Jiu. 2015 Dec;35(12):1221-4.
To compare the effects between fire needle combined with acupuncture and simple acupuncture for facial spasm.
Sixty patients with facial spasm were randomly divided into a fire needle group and an acupuncture group, 30 cases in each one. In the two groups, acupuncture was used at Fengchi (GB 20), Baihui(GV 20), Shenting (GV 24), Zusanli(ST 36) and Yanglingquan(GB 34). The needles were retained for 30 min. In the fire needle group, ashi points in the spasm areas were pricked by fire needles without retaining. In the acupuncture group, acupuncture was retained at ashi points. In the first two weeks,the treatment was given once a day, totally 10 times, and there were two days to have a rest after 5-day treatment. But patients were treated once every other day, three times a week, and totally 20 times from the third week. Fire needle and acupuncture were applied at ashi points until spasm was relieved. The facial spasm degree and frequency were observed after the 15th treatment and the 30th treatment,and the clinical effects were assessed in the two groups.
After treatment the facial spasm degree and frequency were relieved than those before treatment in the two groups (all P < 0.05). Ones in the fire needle group were declined more apparently than those in the acupuncture group (both P < 0.05). After the 15th treatment and the 30th treatment,the cured rates and the total effective rates in the fire needle group were better than those in the acupuncture group [after the 15th treatment: 20.0% (6/30) vs. 10.0% (3/30), 80.0% (24/30) vs. 63.3% (19/30), both P < 0.05; after the 30th treatment: 33.3% (10/30) vs. 20.0% (6/30), 93.3% (28/30) vs. 80.0% (24/30), both P < 0.05].
The efficacy of fire needle is superior to that of simple acupuncture for facial spasm.
比较火针结合针刺与单纯针刺治疗面肌痉挛的效果。
将60例面肌痉挛患者随机分为火针组和针刺组，每组30例。两组均针刺风池（GB 20）、百会（GV 20）、神庭（GV 24）、足三里（ST 36）和阳陵泉（GB 34），留针30分钟。火针组在痉挛部位的阿是穴采用火针点刺不留针，针刺组在阿是穴行针刺留针。前两周每日治疗1次，共10次，5日治疗后休息2日。但从第三周起患者改为隔日治疗1次，每周3次，共20次。火针和针刺均施于阿是穴，直至痉挛缓解。观察第15次治疗和第30次治疗后的面肌痉挛程度和发作频率，并评估两组的临床疗效。
两组治疗后面肌痉挛程度和发作频率均较治疗前缓解（均P < 0.05）。火针组较针刺组下降更明显（均P < 0.05）。第15次治疗和第30次治疗后，火针组的治愈率和总有效率均优于针刺组[第15次治疗后：20.0%（6/30）对10.（3/30），80.0%（24/30）对63.3%（19/30），均P < 0.05；第30次治疗后：33.3%（10/30）对20.0%（6/30），93.3%（28/30）对80.0%（24/30），均P < 0.05]。
火针治疗面肌痉挛的疗效优于单纯针刺。
