Department of Physiotherapy, Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil.
Department of Nutrition, University of Pernambuco, Petrolina, Brazil.
J Acupunct Meridian Stud. 2021 Dec 31;14(6):219-230. doi: 10.51507/j.jams.2021.14.6.219.
Cupping therapy is used to treat musculoskeletal conditions, including low back pain.
The study assessed the effects of dry cupping on pain and functional disability from persistent nonspecific low back pain.
This was a randomized controlled trial, where participants were allocated to a cupping therapy (n = 19) or sham (n = 18) group, for five 10-minute sessions of cupping therapy, twice a week, to stimulate the acupoints related to low back pain (GV4, BL23, BL24, BL25, and BL30, BL40 and BL58) and emotional aspects (HT3 and ST36). All participants were assessed at baseline, post-treatment and follow up (a finalization period of four weeks) using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Groups were compared using the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and the effect size was calculated using Cohen̓s d.
The cupping therapy group presented a lower mean VAS when compared to the sham, at post-treatment (mean difference: -2.36; standard error [SE]: 0.58; < 0.001; "large" effect size: -0.94) and follow up (mean difference: -1.71; SE: 0.81; < 0.042; 'large' effect size: -0.83). The cupping therapy group presented a lower mean ODI when compared to the sham post-treatment (mean difference: -4.68; SE: 1.85; : 0.017; 'large' effect size: -0.87), although in follow-up, there was no difference between the groups (mean difference: 4.16; SE: 2.97; : 0.17; "medium" effect size: -0.70).
Dry cupping was more effective in improving pain and functional disability in people with persistent nonspecific low back pain when compared to the sham.
拔罐疗法用于治疗肌肉骨骼疾病，包括腰痛。
本研究评估了干拔罐疗法对持续性非特异性腰痛患者疼痛和功能障碍的影响。
这是一项随机对照试验，参与者被分配到拔罐治疗组（n=19）或假治疗组（n=18），接受五次 10 分钟的拔罐治疗，每周两次，以刺激与腰痛相关的穴位（GV4、BL23、BL24、BL25 和 BL30、BL40 和 BL58）和情绪方面（HT3 和 ST36）。所有参与者在基线、治疗后和随访（四周结束期）时使用视觉模拟评分（VAS）和 Oswestry 残疾指数（ODI）进行评估。使用协方差分析（ANCOVA）比较组间差异，并用 Cohen̓s d 计算效应大小。
与假治疗组相比，拔罐治疗组在治疗后（平均差异：-2.36；标准误差 [SE]：0.58； < 0.001；“大”效应大小：-0.94）和随访时（平均差异：-1.71；SE：0.81； < 0.042；“大”效应大小：-0.83）的 VAS 评分更低。与假治疗组相比，拔罐治疗组在治疗后 ODI 评分更低（平均差异：-4.68；SE：1.85； ：0.017；“大”效应大小：-0.87），尽管在随访时两组之间没有差异（平均差异：4.16；SE：2.97； ：0.17；“中”效应大小：-0.70）。
与假治疗相比，干拔罐疗法在改善持续性非特异性腰痛患者的疼痛和功能障碍方面更有效。
