Dou Ting-Ting, Zou Yi-Chun, Yan Xing-Ke, Ma Chong-Bing, Wei Yu-Ting
Acupuncture-Moxibustion and Tuina College, Gansu University of CM, Lanzhou 730000, China.
Zhongguo Zhen Jiu. 2023 Jun 12;43(6):639-44. doi: 10.13703/j.0255-2930.20220719-k0003.
To compare the clinical efficacy on lumbar muscle strain with cold and dampness between the different operation sequences of acupuncture and cupping therapy.
Seventy-six patients with lumbar muscle strain with cold and dampness were randomly divided into an acupuncture + cupping group (A + C group, 38 cases) and a cupping + acupuncture group (C + A group, 38 cases, 1 case dropped off). In the A + C group, cupping therapy was delivered 10 min after the end of treatment with acupuncture, while in the C + A group, acupuncture therapy was exerted 10 min after the end of treatment with cupping. Acupuncture was applied to Mingmen (GV 4), Yaoyangguan (GV 3), point and bilateral Shenshu (BL 23), Dachangshu (BL 25), Weizhong (BL 40) and Yanglingquan (GB 34), and the needles were retained for 30 min in each intervention. Flash cupping was operated along the bilateral sides of the lumbar spine for 3 min, and the cups were retained for 10 min at bilateral Shenshu (BL 23), Dachangshu (BL 25) and points. The intervention was delivered once every two days, 3 times weekly, for 3 weeks totally in each group. The scores of visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI), TCM syndrome score and the mean temperature of the lumbar region before and after treatment were compared between the two groups. The safety and the clinical efficacy were assessed for the interventions of the two groups.
Compared with the values before treatment, except for the sleep score of ODI, the VAS scores, ODI scores and TCM syndrome scores were decreased after treatment (<0.01, <0.05); while the mean temperature of the lumbar region was increased (<0.01) in both groups. After treatment, the VAS score and the pain score of ODI in the C + A group were lower than those in the A + C group (<0.05). The incidence rate of adverse reactions of the C + A group was lower than that of the A + C group (<0.01). The effective rate in the A+C group was 92.1% (35/38), that in the C+A group was 94.6%(35/37), there was no statistical difference between the two groups (>0.05).
Different operation sequences between acupuncture and cupping therapy obtain the similar efficacy on lumbar muscle strain with cold and dampness, but cupping therapy delivered prior to acupuncture has certain advantages in relieving pain and improving safety.
比较针刺与拔罐疗法不同操作顺序治疗寒湿型腰肌劳损的临床疗效。
将76例寒湿型腰肌劳损患者随机分为针刺+拔罐组（A+C组，38例）和拔罐+针刺组（C+A组，38例，脱落1例）。A+C组在针刺治疗结束后10分钟进行拔罐治疗，而C+A组在拔罐治疗结束后10分钟进行针刺治疗。针刺选取命门（GV4）、腰阳关（GV3）、穴位及双侧肾俞（BL23）、大肠俞（BL25）、委中（BL40）、阳陵泉（GB34），每次干预留针30分钟。沿腰椎双侧行闪罐3分钟，在双侧肾俞（BL23）、大肠俞（BL25）及穴位处留罐10分钟。每组每两天干预1次，每周3次，共3周。比较两组治疗前后视觉模拟评分（VAS）、Oswestry功能障碍指数（ODI）、中医证候评分及腰部平均温度。评估两组干预措施的安全性及临床疗效。
与治疗前相比，除ODI睡眠评分外，两组治疗后VAS评分、ODI评分及中医证候评分均降低（<0.01，<0.05）；两组腰部平均温度均升高（<0.01）。治疗后，C+A组VAS评分及ODI疼痛评分低于A+C组（<0.05）。C+A组不良反应发生率低于A+C组（<0.01）。A+C组有效率为92.1%（35/38），C+A组有效率为94.6%（35/37），两组间差异无统计学意义（>0.05）。
针刺与拔罐疗法不同操作顺序治疗寒湿型腰肌劳损疗效相似，但拔罐疗法先于针刺在缓解疼痛及提高安全性方面有一定优势。
