Xie Wenzhang, Zeng Liang, Tao Ying, Zhou Yingfan, Zhao Ran, Huang Xinyun, Hou Wenguang, Zhang Ren, Zong Lei
Yueyang Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Shanghai University of TCM, Shanghai 200437, China.
Shanghai Literature Museum of TCM.
Zhongguo Zhen Jiu. 2018 Feb 12;38(2):153-8. doi: 10.13703/j.0255-2930.2018.02.012.
To observe the clinical efficacy differences between different needling methods for dry eye syndrome.
Sixty patients of dry eye syndrome were randomly divided into an observation group and a control group, 30 cases (60 eyes) in each group. Shangjingming (Extra), Xiajingming (Extra), Tongziliao (GB 1), Cuanzhu (BL 2), Fengchi (GB 20), Hegu (LI 4), Sanyinjiao (SP 6), Taixi (KI 3) and Taichong (LR 3) were selected in the two groups. The control group was treated with conventional acupuncture, while the observation group was treated with guiding- acupuncture. Electroacupuncture (EA) was used at bilateral Tongziliao (GB1) and Cuanzhu (BL 2), 30 min per treatment. The treatment was given three times per week. Totally 1-month treatment (12 treatments) was given. The eye symptom score, breakup time of tear film (BUT), Schirmer Ⅰ test (SⅠT) and visual analogue scale (VAS) score were compared before and after treatment in the two groups. The clinical efficacy was compared between the two groups.
Compared before treatment, the eye symptom score, BUT, SⅠT and VAS score were improved after treatment in the two groups (all <0.001); the improvements of eye symptom score and SⅠT in the observation group were superior to those in the control group (both <0.05). The differences of BUT and VSA score between the two groups were not significant (both >0.05). The total effective rate was 86.7% (52/60) in the observation group, which was superior to 73.3% (44/60) in the control group (<0.05). .
The conventional EA and guiding- acupuncture combined with EA are both effective for dry eye syndrome, and the efficacy of guiding- acupuncture combined with EA is superior to that of conventional EA.
观察不同针刺方法治疗干眼症的临床疗效差异。
将60例干眼症患者随机分为观察组和对照组，每组30例（60眼）。两组均选取上睛明（奇穴）、下睛明（奇穴）、瞳子髎（GB 1）、攒竹（BL 2）、风池（GB 20）、合谷（LI 4）、三阴交（SP 6）、太溪（KI 3）、太冲（LR 3）。对照组采用常规针刺治疗，观察组采用导气针刺法治疗。双侧瞳子髎（GB1）和攒竹（BL 2）行电针治疗，每次治疗30分钟。每周治疗3次，共治疗1个月（12次）。比较两组治疗前后的眼症评分、泪膜破裂时间（BUT）、泪液分泌试验Ⅰ（SⅠT）和视觉模拟评分（VAS）评分。比较两组的临床疗效。
与治疗前比较，两组治疗后眼症评分、BUT、SⅠT和VAS评分均改善（均P<0.001）；观察组眼症评分和SⅠT的改善程度优于对照组（均P<0.05）。两组BUT和VSA评分差异无统计学意义（均P>0.05）。观察组总有效率为86.7%（52/60），优于对照组的73.3%（44/60）（P<0.05）。
常规电针与导气针刺结合电针治疗干眼症均有效，且导气针刺结合电针的疗效优于常规电针。
