| Literature DB >> 19098297 |
Sabina Lim1, Seunghun Lee, Seung-Ho Yi, Yang-Sun Son, Sung-Min Choi, Young-Kon Kim.
Abstract
Warm-needling (also called thermo-acupuncture) is a combination of acupuncture and moxibustion. Due to the intense heat involved, there have been concerns over the biological safety of the acuneedles used in the treatment. This paper reports two phases of a safety test. For a preliminary test, we compared the temperature change patterns of stainless steel (SS304) needles and traditional gold alloy needles, which have been increasingly replaced by the former. To verify the effects of the presence of coating materials, the main test involved three different kinds of SS304: silicone-coated, salicylic acid-coated and non-coated needles. Each group of needles was tested for pH level, heavy metals and UV absorbance spectrum along with biological tests on the cytotoxicity and hemolysis of the needle. All the tests on the extractants from the needles were negative. In the biological tests, each test result showed a significant difference from the positive control samples, while no significant difference was observed compared with the negative control samples. In the hemolysis tests, all samples satisfied the Korean Government Standards. All the results suggest that SS304 needles are biologically safe to be used in warm-needling, though they can be improved to perform as well as the gold alloy needles in terms of temperature fluctuations.Entities:
Year: 2008 PMID: 19098297 PMCID: PMC2862940 DOI: 10.1093/ecam/nen066
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1.The photo of the warm-needling.
Figure 2.Temperature changes of thermo needles. Gold-1: 1 cm from the bottom of the handle part. Gold-2: 2 cm from the bottom of the handle part. SS304-1: 1 cm from the bottom of the handle part. SS304-2: 2 cm from the bottom of the handle part. The temperature of Gold-1 rose first, followed by Gold-2, SS304-1 and SS304-2 while the cooling curve displayed the characteristics of the material of acuneedle itself.
pH measurements of the extractants
| Material | Range | MV | Extraction temperature (°C) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 37 | 50 | 70 | |||||||||
| Range | MV | Diff. | Range | MV | Diff. | Range | MV | Diff. | |||
| Blank liquid | 5.4–5.5 | 5.5 | |||||||||
| Non-coated | 5.8 | 5.8 | 0.3 | 5.8–5.9 | 5.9 | 0.4 | 6.1 | 6.1 | 0.6 | ||
| Silicone-coated | 5.5–5.7 | 5.6 | 0.1 | 5.6–5.7 | 5.7 | 0.2 | 5.8–5.9 | 5.9 | 0.4 | ||
| Salicylic acid-coated | 5.6–5.8 | 5.7 | 0.2 | 5.7–5.8 | 5.8 | 0.3 | 5.9–6.2 | 6.0 | 0.5 | ||
Range: The pH range of three measurements. MV, The midpoint value of 3 pH measurements; Diff., The difference between midpoint values of the measured sample and the blank sample. When the difference between the measured samples and the blank sample falls within ±1, it is considered to be compliant with ‘The Standards for Disposable Needles’(KFDA). All samples measured here satisfied the requirement.
Colorimetric comparison results of the extractants of acuneedles
ICP–OES measurement results for extractant (p.p.m.)
| Element | Wavelength (nm) | Extraction temperature (°C) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 37 | 50 | 70 | ||
| Cu | 327.395 | ND | ND | ND |
| Fe | 238.204 | 0.0843 ± 0.0067 | 0.1063 ± 0.0027 | 0.0689 ± 0.0002 |
| Pb | 220.353 | ND | ND | ND |
| Sn | 283.998 | 0.0099 ± 0.0126 | 0.0252 ± 0.0268 | ND |
Wavelength, the wavelength at which each element was measured; ND, not detected. The data are presented as the mean ± SD.
Figure 3.The absorbance versus wavelength curve for the extractants of the silicone-coated acuneedles. It should be noted that the extractant from each temperature fell below 0.1 AU between 250 and 350 nm.
Figure 4.The viability of CCL81 (Vero) cells. PC: positive control, copper extractant. NC, negative control; SS304 extractant. Non-C; extractant from naked acuneedles. SC, extractant from silicon-coated acuneedles; SAC, extractant from salicylic acid-coated acuneedles. *P < 0.001 versus negative control.
Hemolysis percentage calculated from absorbance
| Material | Abs. | Hemolysis of needles | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 37°C | 50°C | 70°C | |||||
| Abs. | Percentage of hemolysis | Abs. | Percentage of hemolysis | Abs. | Percentage of hemolysis | ||
| Positve control | 0.46 ± 0.004 | ||||||
| Negative control | 0.15 ± 0.004 | ||||||
| Non-coated | 0.12 ± 0.003 | −9.14 | 0.09 ± 0.001 | −19.33 | 0.11 ± 0.002 | −11.13 | |
| Silicone-coated | 0.11 ± 0.002 | −10.29 | 0.12 ± 0.003 | −9.87 | 0.10 ± 0.002 | −15.44 | |
| Salicylic acid-coated | 0.10 ± 0.003 | −15.65 | 0.15 ± 0.009 | 2.21 | 0.10 ± 0.001 | −14.50 | |
abs., absorbance at 540 nm. Values are expressed as the mean ± SD. Percentage of hemolysis = (absorbance of test sample-absorbance of negative control)/(absorbance of test sample − absorbance of positive control) × 100. If hemolysis percentage is under 5%, it is deemed to satisfy the stent requirements.