OBJECTIVE: To observe the difference in the efficacy on lumbar intervertebral disc protrusion (LIDP) between Santong tuina therapy and conventional tuina therapy. METHODS: Multi-central, random and controlled clinical trial was carried out. One hundred and twenty cases of LIDP were randomized into an observation group and a control group, 60 cases in each one. In observation group, Santong tuina therapy was used. In control group, conventional tuina therapy was adopted. The clinical efficacy was observed in two groups, and lumbar vertebral function was scaled before and after treatment in two groups. RESULTS: The total effective rate was 95.0% (57/60) in observation group and was 96.7% (58/60) in control group, without significant statistical difference in comparison (P > 0.05). The cured and markedly effective rate was 81.7% (49/60) in observation group and was 63.3% (38/60) in control group, indicating significant statistical difference in comparison (P < 0.05). The self-comparison of lumbar vertebral function before and after treatment presented statistical significance in either observation group (12.25 +/- 3.15, 25.56 +/- 5.27) or control group (13.32 +/- 3.26, 20.46 +/- 4.25, both P < 0.05); additionally, there was significant difference in the comparison between groups after treatment (P < 0.05). The therapy adopted in observation group improved lumbar vertebral function much significantly. CONCLUSION: In the treatment of LIDP, Santong tuina therapy achieves much better clinical efficacy as compared with conventional tuina therapy.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To observe the difference in the efficacy on lumbar intervertebral disc protrusion (LIDP) between Santong tuina therapy and conventional tuina therapy. METHODS: Multi-central, random and controlled clinical trial was carried out. One hundred and twenty cases of LIDP were randomized into an observation group and a control group, 60 cases in each one. In observation group, Santong tuina therapy was used. In control group, conventional tuina therapy was adopted. The clinical efficacy was observed in two groups, and lumbar vertebral function was scaled before and after treatment in two groups. RESULTS: The total effective rate was 95.0% (57/60) in observation group and was 96.7% (58/60) in control group, without significant statistical difference in comparison (P > 0.05). The cured and markedly effective rate was 81.7% (49/60) in observation group and was 63.3% (38/60) in control group, indicating significant statistical difference in comparison (P < 0.05). The self-comparison of lumbar vertebral function before and after treatment presented statistical significance in either observation group (12.25 +/- 3.15, 25.56 +/- 5.27) or control group (13.32 +/- 3.26, 20.46 +/- 4.25, both P < 0.05); additionally, there was significant difference in the comparison between groups after treatment (P < 0.05). The therapy adopted in observation group improved lumbar vertebral function much significantly. CONCLUSION: In the treatment of LIDP, Santong tuina therapy achieves much better clinical efficacy as compared with conventional tuina therapy.