| Literature DB >> 30026821 |
Xiaolan You1,2, Yuanjie Wang2, Jian Wu2, Qinghong Liu2, Yanqing Liu1, Yayun Qian1, Jue Chen1, Dong Tang3, Daorong Wang3.
Abstract
Background: The Zusanli (ST36) acupoint has been associated with treatment of various gastrointestinal conditions. There have been no studies of acupuncture therapy for paralytic postoperative ileus (PPOI). Materials and methods: Patients with PPOI following gastrectomy for gastric cancer were randomized to receive ST36 acupoint injection with neostigmine, gluteal intramuscular injection with 1.0 mg neostigmine, ST36 acupuncture alone, or standard therapy. The main outcome was the effectiveness rate for recovery of peristalsis. Secondary outcomes were time to bowel sound recovery, time to first flatus, and time to first defecation. Tertiary outcomes were drug-related adverse events, including abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, tearing, delirium, seizure, and anxiety.Entities:
Keywords: ST36 acupoint injection; ST36 acupucture; gastric cancer; paralytic postoperative ileus
Year: 2018 PMID: 30026821 PMCID: PMC6036725 DOI: 10.7150/jca.24767
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cancer ISSN: 1837-9664 Impact factor: 4.207
Figure 1Location of ST36
Figure 2Flow diagram of study procedure for PPOI patients
Clinicopathological data of radical gastrectomy patients and diagnosed with PPOI followed by ST36 acupuncture, ST36 acupoint injection, intramuscular injection or standard therapy. * ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists.
| Variable | Acupuncture (n = 59) | Acupoint injection (n = 67) | Intramuscular injection (n = 67) | Standard therapy (n = 53) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, yr | 0.380 | ||||
| ≥ 64 | 33 | 37 | 41 | 24 | |
| < 64 | 26 | 30 | 26 | 29 | |
| Gender | 0.664 | ||||
| Male | 38 | 50 | 46 | 37 | |
| Female | 21 | 17 | 21 | 16 | |
| Method of surgery | 0.839 | ||||
| Prox. gastrectomy | 3 | 9 | 7 | 5 | |
| Distal gastrectomy | 35 | 35 | 37 | 28 | |
| Total gastrectomy | 21 | 23 | 23 | 20 | |
| Educational background | 0.235 | ||||
| None or primary school | 15 | 32 | 28 | 20 | |
| Secondary school | 34 | 24 | 27 | 24 | |
| University degree or above | 10 | 11 | 12 | 9 | |
| Body mass index, kg/m2 | 0.158 | ||||
| < 18.5 | 3 | 15 | 9 | 6 | |
| 18.5-25 | 33 | 26 | 31 | 25 | |
| > 25 | 23 | 26 | 27 | 22 | |
| ASA fitness grade* | 0.102 | ||||
| I | 31 | 53 | 42 | 36 | |
| II | 27 | 13 | 24 | 16 | |
| III | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Type of surgery | 0.826 | ||||
| Laparoscopically assisted | 10 | 14 | 15 | 9 | |
| Open | 49 | 53 | 52 | 44 | |
| Surgical time, min | 180.76 ± 12.68 | 181.90 ± 11.81 | 182.55 ± 9.90 | 180.87 ± 8.19 | 0.767 |
| Anemia state | 0.235 | ||||
| Without anemia | 5 | 12 | 3 | 4 | |
| Mild anemia | 41 | 40 | 50 | 37 | |
| Moderate anemia | 13 | 15 | 14 | 12 | |
| Opioid analgesia use | 0.184 | ||||
| No | 7 | 12 | 18 | 12 | |
| Yes | 52 | 55 | 49 | 41 |
Effectiveness rate of ST36 acupuncture group, ST36 acupoint injection group, intramuscular injection group and standard therapy group.
| Variable | Acupuncture (n = 59) | Acupoint injection (n = 67) | Intramuscular injection (n = 67) | Standard therapy (n = 53) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significant effectiveness (%) | 1 (1.69) | 36 (53.73) | 26 (38.81) | 1 (1.89) | 0.939*,<0.01†, <0.01‡, 0.083# |
| Effectiveness (%) | 3 (5.08) | 27 (40.30) | 17 (25.37) | 1 (1.89) | 0.363*, <0.01†, <0.01‡, 0.066# |
| Total effectiveness (%) | 4 (6.77) | 63 (94.03) | 43 (64.18) | 2 (3.78) | 0.481*, <0.01†, <0.01‡, <0.01# |
* Acupuncture VS. standard therapy. † Acupoint injection VS. standard therapy. ‡ Intramuscular injection VS. standard therapy. #Acupoint injection VS. intramuscular injection.
The time to bowel sounds recovery, time to first flatus, and first defecation.
| Variable | Acupuncture (n = 59) | Acupoint injection (n = 67) | Intramuscular injection (n = 67) | Standard therapy (n = 53) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T to bowel sound recovery, h | 35.54 ±2.67 | 1.88 ± 0.51 | 7.15 ± 1.21 | 38.94 ± 1.65 | 0.281*, < 0.01†, < 0.01‡, < 0.01# |
| T to first flatus, h | 40.34 ± 2.22 | 2.30 ±0.56 | 8.13 ± 1.38 | 44.15± 1.69 | 0.175*, < 0.01†, < 0.01‡, < 0.01# |
| T to first defecation, h | 47.44 ± 1.56 | 2.43 ± 0.61 | 9.78 ± 1.66 | 50.02 ± 1.63 | 0.256*, < 0.01†, < 0.01‡, < 0.01# |
* Acupuncture VS. standard therapy. † Acupoint injection VS. standard therapy. ‡ Intramuscular injection VS. standard therapy. #Acupoint injection VS. intramuscular injection.
Drug-related adverse events. Intramuscular injection adverse events were more serious than ST36 acupoint injections (P < 0.05).
| Drug-related adverse events | ST36 acupoint injection (n = 67) | Intramuscular injection (n = 67) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abdominal pain scores | 3.45 ± 1.76 | 5.27 ± 1.86 | < 0.01 |
| Diarrhea(%) | 27 (40.30) | 38 (56.72) | 0.042 |
| Nausea (%) | 3 (4.48) | 12 (17.91) | 0.013 |
| Vomiting(%) | 2 (2.99) | 9 (13.43) | 0.027 |
| Tearing(%) | 1 (1.49) | 7 (10.45) | 0.031 |
| Delirium(%) | 1 (1.49) | 7 (10.45) | 0.031 |
| Anxiety(%) | 3 (4.48) | 10 (14.93) | 0.038 |
Figure 3A, Abdominal pain scores of drug-related adverse events. B, Anxiety scores of drug-related adverse events. The intramuscular injection (IM) group gave more serious adverse than the ST36 acupoint injection group ( all P < 0.05).