Chen Guo, Xiang Juan, Ouyang Lizhi, Wang Xuzhe, Zhang Sainan, Chen Haijiao, Chen Junjun, Li Tielang
College of Acupuncture-Moxibustion and Tuina, Hunan University of CM, Changsha 410208, Hunan Province, China.
The First Affiliated Hospital of Hunan University of CM.
Zhongguo Zhen Jiu. 2016 Dec 12;36(12):1247-1251. doi: 10.13703/j.0255-2930.2016.12.006.
To compare the clinical efficacy differences among acupuncture combined with western medicine, acupuncture alone and western medicine alone for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS).
Ninety patients were randomly assigned into a needle-medicine group, an acupuncture group and a western medicine group, 30 patients in each group. The patients in the needle-medicine group were treated with acupuncture combined with western medicine; the scalp points included Shenting (GV 24), Xinhui (GV 22), Qianding (GV 21), Baihui (GV 20), Chengguang (BL 6), Tongtian (BL 7), etc. The body points were Zhongji (CV 3), Guanyuan (CV 4), Pangguangshu (BL 28), Ciliao (BL 32), etc. The acupuncture was given 30 min per treatment, once a day. Besides, oral administration of 0.2g levofloxacin (twice per day) and 0.2 mg tamsulosin (once a day) was applied. The patients in the acupuncture group and western medicine group were treated by acupuncture and western medicine respectively. 12-d treatment was taken as one session, and totally 2 sessions were given. The clinical efficacy of the three groups after treatment was compared as well as the National Institutes of Health-Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) total score and pain score, self-rating anxiety scale (SAS) and self-rating depression scale (SDS) before and after treatment.
During the trial two patients dropped out, as a result, 30 patients in the needle-medicine group, 29 patients in the acupuncture group and 29 patients in the western medicine group were included in the analysis. After treatment, 21 patients were cured, 6 patients were markedly effective, 2 patients were effective and 1 patient failed in the needle-medicine group;12 patients were cured, 10 patients were markedly effective, 5 patients were effective and 2 patients failed in the acupuncture group; 11 patients were cured, 12 patients were markedly effective, 4 patients were effective and 2 patients failed in the medicine group; the efficacy in the needle-medicine group was superior to those in the acupuncture group and medicine group (both <0.05). Each score was improved after treatment in each group (all <0.01); the total score of NIH-CPSI as well as SAS and SDS scores in the needle-medicine group were superior to those in the acupuncture group and medicine group (<0.05, <0.01); the pain scores of NIH-CPSI in needle-medicine group and acupuncture group were superior to that in the medicine group (<0.05, <0.01), but the difference between the needle-medicine group and acupuncture group was not significant (>0.05).
The efficacy of acupuncture combined with western medicine for CP/CPPS is superior to that of acupuncture alone and western medicine alone, which could improve the symptom of prostatitis as well as status of anxiety and depression.
比较针刺联合西药、单纯针刺及单纯西药治疗慢性前列腺炎/慢性盆腔疼痛综合征(CP/CPPS)的临床疗效差异。
将90例患者随机分为针药组、针刺组和西药组,每组30例。针药组采用针刺联合西药治疗;头穴取神庭(GV 24)、囟会(GV 22)、前顶(GV 21)、百会(GV 20)、承光(BL 6)、通天(BL 7)等;体穴取中极(CV 3)、关元(CV 4)、膀胱俞(BL 28)、次髎(BL 32)等。每次针刺30分钟,每日1次。此外,口服左氧氟沙星0.2g(每日2次)及坦索罗辛0.2mg(每日1次)。针刺组和西药组分别采用针刺和西药治疗。以12天治疗为1个疗程,共进行2个疗程。比较三组治疗后的临床疗效以及治疗前后美国国立卫生研究院慢性前列腺炎症状指数(NIH-CPSI)总分、疼痛评分、自评焦虑量表(SAS)和自评抑郁量表(SDS)。
试验期间有2例患者脱落,最终针药组30例、针刺组29例、西药组29例纳入分析。治疗后,针药组治愈21例,显效6例,有效2例,无效1例;针刺组治愈12例,显效10例,有效5例,无效2例;西药组治愈11例,显效12例,有效4例,无效2例;针药组疗效优于针刺组和西药组(均P<0.05)。三组治疗后各项评分均改善(均P<0.01);针药组NIH-CPSI总分及SAS、SDS评分优于针刺组和西药组(P<0.05,P<0.01);针药组和针刺组NIH-CPSI疼痛评分优于西药组(P<0.05,P<0.01),但针药组与针刺组之间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
针刺联合西药治疗CP/CPPS的疗效优于单纯针刺及单纯西药,可改善前列腺炎症状及焦虑、抑郁状态。