Lu Lu, Fu Jun-Mei, Feng Fu-Ying, Liang Jian-Ning, Ji Su-Li, Ma Rui
Department of TCM, Fifth Hospital Affiliated to Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou 510700, Guangdong Province, China.
Department of Acupuncture and Moxibustion, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of TCM.
Zhongguo Zhen Jiu. 2019 Jul 12;39(7):734-8. doi: 10.13703/j.0255-2930.2019.07.015.
To evaluate the effectiveness in treatment of chronic neck pain with the direct moxibustion of small moxa cone and explore the dose-effect relationship in treatment of chronic neck pain with different small moxa cones.
A total of 120 patients with chronic neck pain were randomized into a 3-moxa-cone group, a 5-moxa-cone group, a 7-moxa-cone group and a sham-moxibustion group, 30 cases in each one. Fengchi (GB 20), Tianzhu (BL 10), Jingbailao (EX-HN 15), Jianzhongshu (SI 15) and Jianjing (GB 21) were selected in each of the groups. The direct moxibustion with 3, 5 and 7 moxa cones as well as the sham-moxibustion therapy were provided successively in each of the above groups. In the sham-moxibustion group, the lower 1/3 section of moxa cone (about 1.5 mm in length) was soaked in oil before used in treatment. In each group, the treatment was given twice a week, for 10 treatments totally. Separately, before treatment, after treatment and in 1-month follow-up, the scores of the Northwick Park neck pain questionnaire (NPQ), the scores of McGill pain questionnaire (MPQ) and the local pressure pain threshold (PPT) were observed in each group. After treatment and in 1-month follow-up, the therapeutic effects were evaluated in each group.
After treatment and in 1-month follow-up, NPQ scores and MPQ scores in the 3-moxa-cone group, the 5-moxa-cone group and the 7-moxa-cone group were reduced as compared with those before treatment separately (all <0.01), PPT values were increased as compared with those before treatment (all <0.01). But the differences were not statistically significant in the sham-moxibustion group as compared with those before treatment (all >0.05). After treatment and in 1-month follow-up, NPQ scores and MPQ scores in the 3-moxa-cone group, the 5-moxa-cone group and the 7-moxa-cone group were lower as compared with the sham-moxibustion group separately (all <0.05), PPT values were higher as compared with the sham-moxibustion group (all <0.05). After treatment, the NPQ score and MPQ score in the 7-moxa-cone group were lower than the 3-moxa-cone group and PPT values was higher than the 3-moxa-cone group (all <0.05). After treatment and in 1-month follow-up, the therapeutic effects in the 3-moxa-cone group, the 5-moxa-cone group and the 7-moxa-cone group were better than the sham-moxibustion group separately (all <0.05). But, the therapeutic effects were not significantly different in comparison among the moxibusiton groups (>0.05).
The direct moxibustion therapy with different small-moxa-cones effectively relieves chronic neck pain. There is a trend of improvement of the therapeutic effects with increase of the numbers of moxa cones.
评价小艾炷直接灸治疗慢性颈痛的疗效，探讨不同小艾炷治疗慢性颈痛的量效关系。
将120例慢性颈痛患者随机分为3壮组、5壮组、7壮组和假灸组，每组30例。各组均选取风池（GB 20）、天柱（BL 10）、颈百劳（EX-HN 15）、肩中俞（SI 15）和肩井（GB 21）。上述各组依次给予3壮、5壮和7壮直接灸以及假灸疗法。假灸组在治疗前将艾炷下1/3段（约1.5 mm长）浸油。每组每周治疗2次，共治疗10次。分别于治疗前、治疗后及1个月随访时观察各组的Northwick Park颈痛问卷（NPQ）评分、麦吉尔疼痛问卷（MPQ）评分及局部压痛阈值（PPT）。治疗后及1个月随访时，评价各组疗效。
治疗后及1个月随访时，3壮组、5壮组和7壮组的NPQ评分和MPQ评分均较治疗前降低（均P<0.01），PPT值较治疗前升高（均P<0.01）。但假灸组与治疗前比较差异无统计学意义（均P>0.05）。治疗后及1个月随访时，3壮组、5壮组和7壮组的NPQ评分和MPQ评分均低于假灸组（均P<0.05），PPT值高于假灸组（均P<0.05）。治疗后，7壮组的NPQ评分和MPQ评分低于3壮组，PPT值高于3壮组（均P<0.05）。治疗后及1个月随访时，3壮组、5壮组和7壮组的疗效均优于假灸组（均P<0.05）。但各艾灸组间疗效比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。
不同小艾炷直接灸疗法能有效缓解慢性颈痛。随着艾炷壮数增加，疗效有提高趋势。
