| Literature DB >> 23573128 |
Xiaomei Li1, Yanqi Li, Jingzi Chen, Dan Zhou, Yangyang Liu, Yinghong Li, Jianwei Liu, Yongming Guo, Yi Guo.
Abstract
Background. In traditional Chinese medicine acupuncture manipulation is one of the key factors that affect the curative results of acupuncture and more and more researches focus on how the different acupuncture manipulation techniques influence microcirculation nowadays. In this paper we demonstrate the different influences of lift-thrust reinforcing and reducing on blood perfusion. Method. The acupuncture manipulations of lift-thrust reinforcing and reducing were, respectively, applied to the 15 healthy subjects at the Zusanli acupoint and the changes of blood perfusion were monitored by Pericam Perfusion Speckle Imager (PSI). Conclusion. Both of the manipulations of lift-thrust reinforcing and reducing increase blood perfusion at Zusanli acupoint while the increasing amount of blood perfusion in the reinforcing group is significantly higher than in the reducing group.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23573128 PMCID: PMC3610379 DOI: 10.1155/2013/452697
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1(a) Pericam Perfusion Speckle Imager (PSI). (b) The blood perfusion image of the monitor area. The brighter area is the definition of the Region of Interest (0.5 cm around the Zusanli acupoint).
Figure 2(a) ATP-II acupuncture manipulation parameter tester. (b) Output curve of acupuncture manipulation.
Figure 3(a) Reinforcing manipulation by lifting and thrusting. (b) Reducing manipulation by lifting and thrusting.
Figure 4Procedure of acupuncture manipulation groups.
Figure 5The blood perfusion images of different groups. As the blood perfusion is higher, the brighter areas indicate higher blood perfusion.
Figure 6The overall trend of the blood perfusion ratio in different groups.
Single factor repeated measurement ANOVA (time factor).
|
| Mauchly's test | Adjust | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| G-G | H-F | ||
| Reinforcing | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
| Reducing | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
| Even | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
| No manipulation | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
| Control | 0.31 | <0.01 | 0.390 | 0.404 |
Two-factor repeated measurement ANOVA (manipulation-time factor).
|
| Pr > | |
|---|---|---|
| Reinforcing-reducing | 19.72 | <0.01 |
| Reinforcing-even | 49.41 | <0.01 |
| Reinforcing-acupuncture | 73.88 | <0.01 |
| Reinforcing-control | 135.6 | <0.01 |
| Reducing-even | 13.4 | <0.01 |
| Reducing-acupuncture | 30.48 | <0.01 |
| Reducing-control | 85.15 | <0.01 |
| Even-acupuncture | 4.803 | 0.03 |
| Even-control | 47.74 | <0.01 |
| Acupuncture-control | 37.16 | <0.01 |
Blood perfusion ratio of different manipulation groups at different periods.
| Manipulation | Reinforcing | Reducing | Even | Acupuncture | Control |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( |
| B N | 1.0 ± 0.0 | 1.0 ± 0.0 | 1.0 ± 0.0 | 1.0 ± 0.0 | 1.0 ± 0.0 |
| 1 min | 2.08 ± 0.29 | 1.71 ± 0.29 | 1.47 ± 0.22 | 0.99 ± 0.20●† | 1.01 ± 0.07●† |
| 5 min | 2.14 ± 0.38 | 1.82 ± 0.36 | 1.47 ± 0.2 | 1.34 ± 0.13 | 0.98 ± 0.07●† |
| 10 min | 2.13 ± 0.37 | 1.73 ± 0.34 | 1.39 ± 0.24 | 1.30 ± 0.17 | 0.99 ± 0.09●† |
| 15 min | 2.03 ± 0.35 | 1.60 ± 0.29 | 1.34 ± 0.26 | 1.29 ± 0.17 | 0.97 ± 0.09●† |
| 20 min | 1.95 ± 0.35 | 1.51 ± 0.29 | 1.30 ± 0.24 | 1.24 ± 0.14 | 1.00 ± 0.1●† |
| 25 min | 1.85 ± 0.35 | 1.43 ± 0.25 | 1.25 ± 0.3 | 1.24 ± 0.14 | 0.98 ± 0.1●† |
| 30 min | 1.77 ± 0.38 | 1.39 ± 0.24 | 1.21 ± 0.17 | 1.17 ± 0.16 | 1.00 ± 0.13●† |
⋆Significant difference from control group (P < 0.05); ●significant difference from reinforcing group (P < 0.05); †significant difference from reducing group (P < 0.05).