Lehmann Thomas R, Russell Daniel W, Spratt Kevin F, Colby Hutha, Liu King Y, Fairchild Mary Lou, Christensen Stanley
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242 U.S.A.
Pain. 1986 Sep;26(3):277-290. doi: 10.1016/0304-3959(86)90057-6.
Fifty-four patients treated in a 3-week inpatient rehabilitation program were randomly assigned to and accepted treatment with electroacupuncture (n = 17), TENS (low intensity transcutaneous nerve stimulation, n = 18), and TENS dead-battery (placebo, n = 18). Outcome measures included estimates of pain (on a Visual Analogue Scale) and disability by both physician and patient, physical measures of trunk strength and spine range of motion, as well as the patient's perceptions of the relative contribution of the education, exercise training, and the electrical stimulation. Analyses of variance were utilized to determine effects of treatment (electroacupuncture, TENS, placebo) across time (admission, discharge, and return) for the outcome measures. There were no significant differences between treatment groups with respect to their overall rehabilitation. All 3 treatment groups ranked the contribution of the education as being greater than the electrical stimulation. However, the electroacupuncture group consistently demonstrated greater improvement on the outcome measures than the other treatment groups. For the visual analogue scale measure of average pain, there was a statistical trend at the return visit suggesting that the acupuncture group was experiencing less pain.
54名在为期3周的住院康复项目中接受治疗的患者被随机分配并接受电针治疗（n = 17）、经皮电刺激神经疗法（低强度经皮神经刺激，n = 18）和经皮电刺激神经疗法假电池组（安慰剂，n = 18）。结果指标包括医生和患者对疼痛（采用视觉模拟量表）和残疾情况的评估、躯干力量和脊柱活动范围的身体测量，以及患者对教育、运动训练和电刺激相对贡献的认知。采用方差分析来确定治疗（电针、经皮电刺激神经疗法、安慰剂）在不同时间（入院、出院和回访）对结果指标的影响。各治疗组在整体康复方面没有显著差异。所有3个治疗组都认为教育的贡献大于电刺激。然而，电针组在结果指标上始终比其他治疗组表现出更大的改善。对于平均疼痛的视觉模拟量表测量，回访时有一个统计趋势表明针灸组疼痛较轻。
