| Literature DB >> 29941854 |
Tiaw-Kee Lim1, Yan Ma2,3, Frederic Berger4, Gerhard Litscher5,6.
Abstract
Within the last 10 years, the percentage of low back pain (LBP) prevalence increased by 18%. The management and high cost of LBP put a tremendous burden on the healthcare system. Many risk factors have been identified, such as lifestyle, trauma, degeneration, postural impairment, and occupational related factors; however, as high as 95% of the cases of LBP are non-specific. Currently, LBP is treated pharmacologically. Approximately 25 to 30% of the patients develop serious side effects, such as drowsiness and drug addiction. Spinal surgery often does not result in a massive improvement of pain relief. Therefore, complementary approaches are being integrated into the rehabilitation programs. These include chiropractic therapy, physiotherapy, massage, exercise, herbal medicine and acupuncture. Acupuncture for LBP is one of the most commonly used non-pharmacological pain-relieving techniques. This is due to its low adverse effects and cost-effectiveness. Currently, many randomized controlled trials and clinical research studies have produced promising results. In this article, the causes and incidence of LBP on global health care are reviewed. The importance of treatment by acupuncture is considered. The efforts to reveal the link between acupuncture points and anatomical features and the neurological mechanisms that lead to acupuncture-induced analgesic effect are reviewed.Entities:
Keywords: acupuncture; adenosine; adenosine triphosphate (ATP); anti-nociceptive; low back pain (LBP); mechanism of acupuncture; purinergic receptors
Year: 2018 PMID: 29941854 PMCID: PMC6164863 DOI: 10.3390/medicines5030063
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Medicines (Basel) ISSN: 2305-6320
Results of randomized control trials for acupuncture treatment of lower back pain.
| Authors | Diagnosis | Intervention Group | Control Group | Outcome Measure | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pach et al. (2013) [ | CLBP | NA | VAS | Both intervention groups showed improvement in pain scale but there were no relevant difference between them | |
| Molsberger et al. (2002) [ | LBP | VAS | Acupuncture + conventional orthopaedic therapy were better than sham and conventional orthopaedic therapy alone | ||
| Weiß et al. (2013) [ | CLBP | SF-36 | Intervention group showed better results judging from SF-36 questionnaires | ||
| Inoue et al. (2006) [ | LBP | VAS, Schober test | Both groups showed reduction in pain but intervention group showed better result than control group | ||
| Giles et al. (2003) [ | CSP | ODI, NDI, SF-36, VAS | Manipulation achieved the best overall results, however, on the VAS for neck pain, acupuncture showed a better result than manipulation (50% vs. 42%) | ||
| Haake et al. (2007) [ | CLBP | CPGS, HFAQ | Effectiveness of acupuncture, both verum and sham, was almost twice that of conventional therapy | ||
| Brinkhaus et a (2006) [ | CLBP | SF-36, VAS | Acupuncture was better than no acupuncture, but no significant differences between acupuncture and minimal acupuncture | ||
| Cho et al. (2013) [ | CLBP | VAS | Acupuncture was better than sham acupuncture | ||
| Cherkin et al. (2001) [ | CLBP | SBS, RDS | Massage was better than acupuncture and self-care | ||
| Cherkin et al. (2009) [ | CLBP | RMDQ | All intervention groups showed better outcome than usual care, but no significant differences among the acupuncture groups | ||
| Yun et al. (2012) [ | CLBP | RMDQ, VAS | Intervention groups showed better results than control; but individualized acupuncture is more effective than standardized acupuncture | ||
| Zhang et al. (2017) [ | DiscogenicSciatica | NRS, ODI, PGI | The effect of electroacupuncture was superior to that of MFE | ||
| Thomas et al. (1994) [ | CNLBP | ADL related to pain, ROM | All intervention groups showed reduction of pain, more so in low frequency electroacupuncture group in long term | ||
| Glazov et al. (2014) [ | NSCLBP | 840 nm laser acupuncture: | NPRS, ODI | Treatment groups showed better result but no difference between sham and laser groups | |
| Shin et al. (2015) [ | LBP | 660 nm laser acupuncture: | VAS, PPT | Both groups showed improvement in pain but no significant difference outcomes between the two groups |
NA = Not Available; ADL = Activities of Daily Life; CPGS = Chronic Pain Grade Scale; HFAQ = Hanover Functional Ability Questionnaire; MFE = Medium-Frequency Electrotherapy; NDI = Neck Disability Index; NRS = Numerical Rating Scale; ODI = Oswestry Disability Index; NPRS = Numerical Pain Rating Scale; PGI = patient global impression; PPT = Pressure Pain Threshold; RDS = Roland Disability Scale; RMDQ = Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire; ROM = Range of Motion; SBS = Symptom Bothersomeness Scale; SF-36 = Short-Form 36 Health Survey; VAS = Visual Analog Scale; CLBP = chronic low back pain; CNLBP = chronic nociceptive low back pain; CSP = chronic spinal pain; LBP = low back pain; NSCLBP = non-specific chronic low back pain; nm = Nanometer.
Selection of acupuncture points of randomized control trials for treatment of lower back pain.
| Authors | Local Points | Distant Points | Other Points |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pach et al. (2013) [ | BL 23, 24, 25 | BL 40, 60; GB 34; K 3 | - |
| Molsberger et al. (2002) [ | BL 23, 25; GB 30 | BL 40, 60; GB 34 | 4 Ashi Points of maximum pain |
| Weiß et al. (2013) [ | NA | NA | - |
| Inoue et al. (2006) [ | - | - | Single Ashi Point at the most painful point |
| Giles et al. (2003) [ | 8 to 10 needles were placed in local paraspinal intramuscular maximum pain areas | Approximately 5 needles were placed in distal acupuncture point | - |
| Haake et al. (2007) [ | 14 to 20 needles were inserted but exact locations were not mentioned | ||
| Brinkhaus et al. (2006) [ | At least 4 local points: | At least 2 distant points: | Extraordinary Points: |
| Cho et al. (2013) [ | Points were chosen according to 3 types of meridian patterns: | ||
| Cherkin et al. (2001) [ | NA | NA | - |
| Cherkin et al. (2009) [ | 1. Individualized Acupuncture: | ||
| Yun et al. (2012) [ | GV 3; BL 23 | BL 40; K 3 | Low Back Ashi Points, Back-Pain Points ^ |
| Zhang et al. (2017) [ | BL 25 | - | Extraordinary Points: |
| Thomas et al. (1994) [ | BL 23, 25, 26, 32; | BL 40, 60; SI 6; ST 36 | - |
| Glazov et al. (2014) [ | An average of 9 points were used: | ||
| Shin et al. (2015) [ | GV 3, 4, 5; | BL 40 * | - |
BL = Bladder; GB = Gallbladder; GV = Governor Vessel; K = Kidney; LR = Liver; SP = Spleen; ST = Stomach; NA = Not Available; * = Bilaterally; ^ = Extra Meridian points on the back of hand.