Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy differences of acupotomy therapy guided by the meridian sinew theory and acupotomy therapy guided by the anatomy theory of western medicine in the treatment of knee osteoart...Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy differences of acupotomy therapy guided by the meridian sinew theory and acupotomy therapy guided by the anatomy theory of western medicine in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis.Methods: Sixty-three patients were randomly divided into the acupotomy group of the meridian sinew theory(Group A, n = 32) and the acupotomy group of the anatomy theory(Group B. n = 31). For Group A, with positive reaction points such as the tenderness points of three yang meridians and three yin meridians of the foot, and funicular nodules as the points of needle insertion, the needle-knife, after disinfection and anesthesia, gives priority to longitudinal dissection after insertion, and then carries out subcutaneous sweeping maniplation. For Group B, with 8 points for needle insertion, including the origins and terminations of the medial and lateral collateral ligaments, the origins and terminations of the patellar ligament, the terminations of the quadriceps femoris tendon, and pes anserinus bursa point, the treatment was performed in strict accordance with the four-step procedures of acupotomy(positioning,orientating, pressurizing to separate, and puncturing) after disinfection and anesthesia. The treatment was conducted once a week and three times in total. Statistical analysis was conducted with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities(WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index and Visual Analogue Scale(VAS)for overall pain before treatment and at week 2 and 4 during treatment, and the adverse reactions of patients were observed and recorded to evaluate the curative effect.Results: During the treatment period, the overall response rates(ORRs, that is markedly effective + effective) were compared between the two groups. The ORR of Group A was 90.63% and that of Group B was 87.09%. There was no statistical significant difference between the two groups(P>0.05).After treatment, the WOMAC function score of Group A was significantly lower than that before treatment(17.28 ±10.22 vs 32.75 ± 14.88, P <0.展开更多
基金Supported by Nanjing Municipal Science and Technology Development Project:201715070~~
文摘Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy differences of acupotomy therapy guided by the meridian sinew theory and acupotomy therapy guided by the anatomy theory of western medicine in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis.Methods: Sixty-three patients were randomly divided into the acupotomy group of the meridian sinew theory(Group A, n = 32) and the acupotomy group of the anatomy theory(Group B. n = 31). For Group A, with positive reaction points such as the tenderness points of three yang meridians and three yin meridians of the foot, and funicular nodules as the points of needle insertion, the needle-knife, after disinfection and anesthesia, gives priority to longitudinal dissection after insertion, and then carries out subcutaneous sweeping maniplation. For Group B, with 8 points for needle insertion, including the origins and terminations of the medial and lateral collateral ligaments, the origins and terminations of the patellar ligament, the terminations of the quadriceps femoris tendon, and pes anserinus bursa point, the treatment was performed in strict accordance with the four-step procedures of acupotomy(positioning,orientating, pressurizing to separate, and puncturing) after disinfection and anesthesia. The treatment was conducted once a week and three times in total. Statistical analysis was conducted with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities(WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index and Visual Analogue Scale(VAS)for overall pain before treatment and at week 2 and 4 during treatment, and the adverse reactions of patients were observed and recorded to evaluate the curative effect.Results: During the treatment period, the overall response rates(ORRs, that is markedly effective + effective) were compared between the two groups. The ORR of Group A was 90.63% and that of Group B was 87.09%. There was no statistical significant difference between the two groups(P>0.05).After treatment, the WOMAC function score of Group A was significantly lower than that before treatment(17.28 ±10.22 vs 32.75 ± 14.88, P <0.
