| Literature DB >> 29735964 |
Dao-Ming Xu1, Huaning Xu2, Jing Liu2, Tong Wang1, Wenzhong Wu3, Lanying Liu3, Qianmo Tian3, Hanjun Li4, Lili Zhang5, Yana Cao3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Primary osteoporosis is a common disease among postmenopausal women and the elderly; low back pain is the most typical clinical manifestation an is the primary reason for a clinic visit, and directly affects patients' quality of life. Anti-osteoporosis medications have undesirable side effects, and many kinds of special traditional Chinese moxibustion methods have been widely used in the clinical treatment of osteoporosis low back pain. The purpose of this study was to observe whether thunder-fire moxibustion therapy, compared to calcium supplements alone, can ease osteoporosis low back pain, improve quality of life, and reduce tension of the multifidus. MATERIAL AND METHODS Sixty-three eligible patients were enrolled in the study (7 of these patients did not finish the study and are not included in analysis). Participants were randomly divided into 2 groups: a moxibustion group that received calcium carbonate D3 and thunder-fire moxibustion therapy, and a control group that received calcium carbonate D3 only. Level of pain experienced, assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS), and quality of life (SF-36) were measured pre-treatment, at the end of 4 weeks of treatment, and at a 1-month post-treatment evaluation. Changes in values of Young's modulus of the multifidus were also collected before and after treatment. RESULTS After 4 weeks of treatment and at 1 month after treatment had ended, low back pain in both groups was reduced relative to pre-treatment levels. The moxibustion group was significantly improved at BP, GH, SF, and MH dimensions compared to pre-treatment levels. The control group improved in BP dimensions, but not to the same extent as the moxibustion group. Similarly, after treatment for 4 weeks with moxibustion, multifidus tension was significantly reduced. CONCLUSIONS Thunder-fire moxibustion is an effective method for treating low back pain due to primary osteoporosis.Entities:
Keywords: Low Back Pain; Osteoporosis; SF-36; Thunder-Fire Moxibustion; VAS; Yang’s Modulus
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29735964 PMCID: PMC5962240 DOI: 10.12659/MSM.909725
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Monit ISSN: 1234-1010
Baseline clinical characteristics of participants.
| Moxibustion group (n=32) | Control group (n=31) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 65.16 | 63.90 | P>0.05 |
| ±6.82 | ±7.59 | ||
| Height (cm) | 159.31 | 158.65 | P>0.05 |
| ±6.60 | ±5.31 | ||
| Body weight (kg) | 55.95 | 56.53 | P>0.05 |
| ±9.41 | ±6.83 | ||
| Duration of back pain (months) | 11.31 | 11.32 | P>0.05 |
| ±4.03 | ±4.16 | ||
| BMI | 22.00 | 22.31 | P>0.05 |
| ±3.02 | ±2.56 |
Figure 1preparation of thunder-fire moxibustion box.
Figure 2position of moxibustion treatment.
Figure 3moxibustion box covered with treatment towel.
Figure 4Participants flow diagram.
Changes of the pain intensity changes in VAS scoring from Pretreament to final follow-up.
| Pretreament | Treatment 4 weeks | Post treatment 1 month | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VAS | Moxibustion group | 4.97 | 2.77 | 3.10 | T-P: P<0.01 |
| ±1.31 | ±0.92 | ±1.06 | |||
| Control group | 5.32 | 4.00 | 3.81 | T-P: P<0.01 | |
| ±1.49 | ±1.28 | ±1.33 | |||
| P>0.05 | P<0.01 | P<0.05 |
Changes in the 8 items of the norm-based Short-Form-36 scores from Pretreament to final follow-up.
| Pretreament | Treatment 4 weeks | Post treatment 1 month | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PF | Moxibustion group | 52.34 | 62.26 | 62.59 | T-P: P>0.05 |
| ±21.74 | ±19.70 | ±20.69 | |||
| Control group | 54.52 | 61.38 | 64.26 | T-P: P>0.05 | |
| ±20.79 | ±22.87 | ±21.29 | |||
| P>0.05 | P>0.05 | P>0.05 | |||
| RP | Moxibustion group | 25.78 | 33.87 | 31.03 | T-P: P>0.05 |
| ±32.68 | ±36.26 | ±33.84 | |||
| Control group | 25.81 | 25.00 | 30.56 | T-P: P>0.05 | |
| ±36.79 | ±36.60 | ±30.49 | |||
| P>0.05 | P>0.05 | P>0.05 | |||
| BP | Moxibustion group | 49.13 | 72.60 | 66.07 | T-P: P<0.01 |
| ±18.16 | ±15.43 | ±11.97 | |||
| Control group | 50.24 | 62.31 | 59.17 | T-P: P<0.01 | |
| ±19.38 | ±14.59 | ±12.83 | |||
| P>0.05 | P<0.05 | P<0.05 | |||
| GH | Moxibustion group | 43.44 | 56.55 | 52.76 | T-P: P<0.01 |
| ±17.62 | ±16.02 | ±13.34 | |||
| Control group | 41.84 | 46.93 | 45.33 | T-P: P>0.05 | |
| ±14.93 | ±15.51 | ±13.94 | |||
| P>0.05 | P<0.05 | P<0.05 | |||
| VT | Moxibustion group | 56.25 | 63.06 | 56.38 | T-P: P>0.05 |
| ±20.64 | ±15.20 | ±18.02 | |||
| Control group | 52.90 | 55.86 | 57.41 | T-P: P>0.05 | |
| ±16.67 | ±17.12 | ±14.10 | |||
| P>0.05 | P>0.05 | P>0.05 | |||
| SF | Moxibustion group | 67.58 | 78.23 | 79.31 | T-P: P<0.05 |
| ±21.73 | ±16.45 | ±16.80 | |||
| Control group | 66.53 | 67.67 | 68.98. | T-P: P>0.05 | |
| ±21.50 | ±21.00 | ±19.11 | |||
| P>0.05 | P<0.05 | P<0.05 | |||
| RE | Moxibustion group | 45.83 | 59.14 | 41.38 | T-P: P>0.05 |
| ±44.60 | ±40.10 | ±39.50 | |||
| Control group | 47.31 | 54.02 | 39.51 | T-P: P>0.05 | |
| ±34.18 | ±38.23 | ±26.21 | |||
| P>0.05 | P>0.05 | P>0.05 | |||
| MH | Moxibustion group | 60.75 | 70.58 | 69.24 | T-P: P<0.05 |
| ±17.52 | ±17.14 | ±14.62 | |||
| Control group | 59.61 | 57.10 | 55.41 | T-P: P>0.05 | |
| ±18.02 | ±20.34 | ±17.32 | |||
| P>0.05 | P<0.01 | P<0.01 |
Changes in the young’s modulus value from pretreament to treatment 4 weeks (kPa).
| Pretreament | Treatment 4 weeks | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moxibustion group | Left | P<0.01 | ||
| Right | P<0.01 | |||
| Control group | Left | 16.31 | P>0.05 | |
| ±3.11 | ||||
| Right | 16.55 | P>0.05 | ||
| ±4.15 | ||||
| P>0.05 | P<0.01 |
Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Bold values significance p<0.05.