| Literature DB >> 34594394 |
Hokyung Chang1,2, Hyungsuk Kim1,2, Koh-Woon Kim2, Jae-Heung Cho1,2, Mi-Yeon Song2, Won-Seok Chung1,2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This review verifies the clinical effects of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) combined with conventional rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34594394 PMCID: PMC8478569 DOI: 10.1155/2021/9993651
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Flow diagram of the study selection process.
Characteristics of the included studies.
| First author | Sample size (M/F) | Mean age ( | POD ( | Onset ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E | C | E | C | E | C | |||
| Chen 2016 | 100 (61/39) | 32.5 ± 2.5 | — | — | 3 d∼3 y | |||
| Hu 2018 | 80 (64/16) | 29.9 ± 4.6 | 28.3 ± 9.6 | — | — | 7 h∼7 d | ||
| Huang 2018 | 76 (56/20) | 32.32 ± 6.34 | 30.95 ± 5.73 | 4.12 ± 0.56 m | 3.89 ± 0.31 m | |||
| Jorge 2017 | 44 (28/16) | 31.4 ± 8.3 | 34.4 ± 8.6 | 15.6 ± 1.5 d | 15.5 ± 2.0 d | |||
| Li 2017 | 60 (31/29) | 25.2 ± 4.3 | 24.9 ± 3.2 | — | — | 7.4 ± 2.6 d | 7.2 ± 3.1 d | |
| Liang 2006 | 32 (19/13) | 29.0 ± 3.0 | 28.0 ± 11.0 | — | — | 87.6 ± 121.8 d | 96.9 ± 117.7 d | |
| Liang 2010 | 76 (45/31) | - | - | — | — | |||
| Tang 2017 | 60 (37/23) | 28.8 ± 5.87 | 29.27 ± 6.58 | — | — | 4.67 ± 0.89 d | 4.82 ± 0.65 d | |
| Wang 2017 | 60 (37/23) | 37.80 ± 6.66 | 37.13 ± 6.47 | — | — | 8.55 ± 2.33 d | 8.86 ± 1.91 d | |
| Wang et al. 2019 | 46 (13/33) | 34.0 | 34.3 | — | — | |||
| Wang 2020 | 160 (95/65) | 25.57 ± 7.55 | 25.11 ± 7.29 | — | — | 2.02 ± 0.93 d | 2.11 ± 0.89 d | |
| Wang 2019 | 146 (99/47) | 34.8 | 32.8 | — | — | 2–12 w | ||
| Wei 2016 | 40 (20/20) | 26.75 ± 6.20 | 29.85 ± 5.32 | — | — | |||
| Wu 2009 | 25 (17/8) | 28.6 | — | — | 4h–11w | |||
| Xiong et al. 2011 | 27 (17/10) | 28.6 | — | — | 4h–11w | |||
| Xu 2017 | 47 (27/20) | 33.08 ± 9.85 | 33.56 ± 8.89 | — | — | |||
| Yang 2017 | 70 (59/11) | 29.14 ± 7.62 | 29.23 ± 8.48 | — | — | 101.65 ± 33.25 d | 105.29 ± 25.81 d | |
| Yi 2018 | 80 (53/27) | 36.27 ± 12.85 | 35.85 ± 12.23 | — | — | 2.82 ± 0.81 m | 2.95 ± 0.75 m | |
| Zhong 2019 | 60 (47/13) | 29.00 ± 4.37 | 27.80 ± 4.84 | — | — | |||
|
| ||||||||
| First author | Experimental group | Control group | Outcomes | Evaluation time points | Adverse events | |||
| Intervention type | Duration | n | Intervention type | n | ||||
| Chen 2016 | MA + EA + HM + FW + basic rehabilitation | 54 d | 50 | Basic rehabilitation | 50 | VAS | 3 m | Not presented |
| Hu 2018 | MA + EA + FW + MM + basic rehabilitation | 4 w | 40 | Basic rehabilitation | 40 | VAS< | 4 w | Not presented |
| Huang 2018 | MA + WN + basic rehabilitation | 4 w | 38 | Basic rehabilitation | 38 | VAS | 2 m | Not presented |
| Jorge 2017 | MA + basic rehabilitation | 1 d | 22 | Basic rehabilitation | 25 | VAS | 1 d, 1 w, 5 w | Presented |
| Li 2017 | HM + FW + basic rehabilitation | 4 w | 30 | Basic rehabilitation | 30 | Lysholm score | 2 w, 4 w | Not presented |
| Liang 2006 | EA + HM + FW + MM + basic rehabilitation | 46 d | 16 | Basic rehabilitation | 16 | VAS | 3 d, 1 w, 2 w, 3 m | Not presented |
| Liang 2010 | EA + HM + FW + MM + basic rehabilitation | 4 w | 38 | Basic rehabilitation | 38 | VAS | 3 m, 6 m | Presented |
| Tang 2017 | MA + HM + FW + MM + basic rehabilitation | 12 w | 30 | Basic rehabilitation | 30 | Lysholm score | 3 m, 6 m, 12 m | Not presented |
| Wang 2017 | MA + basic rehabilitation | 13 d | 30 | Basic rehabilitation | 30 | VAS | 2 d, 4 d, 6 d, 8 d, 10 d, 12 d, 2 w | Not presented |
| Wang et al 2019 | HM + basic rehabilitation | 4 w | 23 | Basic rehabilitation | 23 | Lysholm score | 2 w, 4 w, 6 w | Not presented |
| Wang 2020 | MA + basic rehabilitation | — | 80 | Basic rehabilitation | 80 | HSS score | 4 m | Not presented |
| Wang 2019 | HM + basic rehabilitation | 12 w | 76 | Basic rehabilitation | 76 | Lysholm score | 3 m, 6 m, 12 m | Presented |
| Wei 2016 | MA + EA + basic rehabilitation | 4 d | 20 | Basic rehabilitation | 20 | VAS | 3 h, 6 h, 12 h, 1 d, 2 d, 3 d | Presented |
| Wu 2009 | HM + FW + MM + basic rehabilitation | 5 w | 13 | Basic rehabilitation | 12 | VAS | 2 w, 4 w, 3 m | Not presented |
| Xiong et al. 2011 | HM + FW + MM + basic rehabilitation | 7 w | 15 | Basic rehabilitation | 12 | VAS | 1 w, 2 w, 4 w, 3 m | Not presented |
| Xu 2017 | EA + HM + MM + basic rehabilitation | More than 4 w | 24 | Basic rehabilitation | 23 | VAS | 2 w, 1 m, 3 m | Not presented |
| Yang 2017 | HM + basic rehabilitation | 1 y | 35 | Basic rehabilitation | 35 | Lysholm score | 6 m, 12 m | Not presented |
| Yi 2018 | MA + EA + basic rehabilitation | 12 w | 40 | Basic rehabilitation | 40 | VAS | 1 m, 3 m, 6 m | Not presented |
| Zhong 2019 | MA + basic rehabilitation | 4 w | 30 | Basic rehabilitation | 30 | VAS | 1 d, 5 d, 12 d, 1 m, 3 m | Not presented |
M: male; F: female; E: experimental group; C: control group; MA: manual acupuncture; WN: warm needling; EA: electroacupuncture; HM: herbal medicine; FW: fuming-washing therapy; MM: massage along meridian; VAS: visual analogue scale; ROM: range of motion; IKDC-2000: International Knee Documentation Committee 2000; WOMAC: Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index; HSS: Hospital for Special Surgery; POD: postoperative date.
Details of acupuncture treatment.
| First author | Acupuncture rationale | Details of needling | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type of acupuncture | Acupuncture points | Needling duration (ES frequency) | ||
| Chen 2016 | TCM | MA | GB31, GB34, ST36, ST40 | 15 min |
| EA | BL57, GB31, GB34, SP6, SP10, ST32, ST36, ST40 | 15 min (80 Hz) | ||
|
| ||||
| Hu 2018 | TCM | MA | BL57, GB34, SP9, SP10, ST34, ST35, ST36 | 30 min |
| EA | BL57, GB34, SP9, SP10, ST34, ST35, ST36 | 30 min (n.r.) | ||
|
| ||||
| Huang 2018 | TCM | MA | LR3, SP9, SP10, ST32, ST34, ST35, ST36, EX-LE4 | 30 min |
| Jorge 2017 | Western medical | MA | Vastus medialis TrP | 1-2 min |
| Liang 2006 | TCM | EA | GB34, SP9, ST36 | n.r. (80 Hz) |
| Liang 2010 | TCM | EA | n.r. | n.r. (n.r.) |
| Tang 2017 | TCM | MA | BL39, BL40, BL57, GB33, GB34, LR7, SP6, SP10, ST34, ST35, ST36 | n.r. |
| Wang 2017 | TCM | MA | SP6, SP9, SP10, ST32, ST34, ST36 | 30 min |
| Wang 2020 | TCM | MA | GB34, GV20, KI3, LI4, LR3, SP6, SP9, SP10, ST34, EX-LE2, zuyundongqu | 30 min |
| Wei 2016 | TCM | MA | LR6 | 30 min |
| EA | LR6 | 30 min (100–1000 Hz) | ||
|
| ||||
| Xu 2017 | TCM | EA | BL57, GB34, SP6, SP9, SP10, ST36, ST40 | n.r. |
| Yi 2018 | TCM | MA | BL39, BL40, BL57, GB33, GB34, LR7, SP6, SP9, SP10, ST34, ST35, ST36 | 30 min |
| EA | BL39, BL40, BL57, GB33, GB34, LR7, SP6, SP9, SP10, ST34, ST35, ST36 | 30 min (n.r.) | ||
|
| ||||
| Zhong 2019 | TCM | MA | GB34, SP6, SP9, SP10, ST32, ST34, ST36 | 20 min |
TCM: traditional Chinese medicine; MA: manual acupuncture; EA: electroacupuncture; ES: electrical stimulation; n.r: not reported.
Frequently used acupuncture points.
| Number of times used | 9 | 8 | 7 | 5 | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acupuncture point | SP10, ST36 | GB34, SP9 | SP6, ST34 | BL57 | ST32, ST35 |
Details of herbal medicine treatment.
| First author | Dosage form | Administration duration and frequency | Herbal medicine name | Basic components |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chen 2016 | Decoction | 3 w, tid | 1. Xishangyihao-fang | 1. Achyranthis Radix, Coptidis Rhizoma, Curcumae Longae Radix, Rhei Rhizoma Preparata Cum Vinum |
| 2. Xishangerhao-fang | 2. Angelicae Gigantis Radix, Bletillae Rhizoma, Cyperi Rhizoma, Coptidis Rhizoma, Persicae Semen | |||
| 3. Xishangsanhao-fang | 3. Astragali Radix, Chaenomelis Fructus, Cibotii Rhizoma, Codonopsis Pilosulae Radix, Homalomenae Rhizoma | |||
|
| ||||
| Li 2017 | Tablet preparation | 4 w, tid | 1. Guxiyi decoction | 1. Achyranthis Radix, Angelicae Gigantis Radix, Araliae Continentalis Radix, Aucklandiae Radix, Cnidi Fructus, Cnidii Rhizoma, Coicis Semen, Drynariae Rhizoma, Glycyrrhizae Radix Et Rhizoma, Eupolyphaga, Mori Ramulus, Moutan Cortex Radicis, Myrrha, Olibanum, Notoginseng Radix, Paeoniae Radix, Phryma Leptostachya, Syzygii Flos, Rehmanniae Radix Crudus, Salviae Miltiorrhizae Radix |
|
| ||||
| Liang 2006 | Decoction | 4 w, tid | 1. Xishangyihao-fang | 1. Achyranthis Radix, Coptidis Rhizoma, Curcumae Longae Radix, Rhei Rhizoma Preparata Cum Vinum, Scutellariae Radix, Taraxaci Herba |
| 2. Xishangerhao-fang | 2. Achyranthis Radix, Akebiae Caulis, Angelicae Gigantis Radix, Bletillae Rhizoma, Coptidis Rhizoma, Cyperi Rhizoma, Dipsaci Radix, Paeoniae Radix, Persicae Semen | |||
| 3. Xishangsanhao-fang | 3. Akebiae Caulis, Astragali Radix, Chaenomelis Fructus, Cibotii Rhizoma, Cistanchis Herba, Codonopsis Pilosulae Radix, Cuscutae Semen, Lumbricus, Homalomenae Rhizoma, Visci Herba Et Loranthi Ramulus | |||
|
| ||||
| Liang 2010 | Decoction | 4 w, tid | 1. Xishangyihao-fang | — |
| 2. Xishangerhao-fang | ||||
|
| ||||
| Tang 2017 | Decoction, powder preparation | 6 w, tid | 1. XiaoZhong ZhiTong mixture | — |
| 2. Sunshangsan | ||||
|
| ||||
| Wang et al. 2019 | Decoction | 4 w, bid | 1. Taohongsiwu-tang | 1. Angelicae Gigantis Radix, Carthami Flos, Cnidii Rhizoma, Paeoniae Radix, Persicae Semen, Rehmanniae Radix Preparata |
|
| ||||
| Wang 2019 | Pill preparation | 12 w, bid | 1. Bujin-wan | 1. Acanthopanax Root Bark, Achyranthis Radix, Angelicae Gigantis Radix, Aucklandiae Radix, Chaenomelis Fructus, Cistanchis Herba, Cnidi Fructus, Cuscutae Semen, Dioscoreae Rhizoma, Ginseng Radix, Olibanum, Poria Sclerotium, Rehmanniae Radix Preparata, Tribuli Fructus |
|
| ||||
| Wu 2009 | Decoction | 30 d, bid-tid | 1. Xishangyihao-fang | 1. Achyranthis Radix, Coptidis Rhizoma, Curcumae Longae Radix, Scutellariae Radix, Taraxaci Herba |
| 2. Xishangerhao-fang | 2. Achyranthis Radix, Akebiae Caulis, Angelicae Gigantis Radix, Bletillae Rhizoma, Carthami Flos, Coptidis Rhizoma, Cyperi Rhizoma, Dipsaci Radix, Paeoniae Radix, Persicae Semen | |||
| 3. Xishangsanhao-fang | 3. Akebiae Caulis, Angelicae Gigantis Radix, Astragali Radix, Chaenomelis Fructus, Cibotii Rhizoma, Cistanchis Herba, Cuscutae Semen, Homalomenae Rhizoma, Lumbricus, Visci Herba Et Loranthi Ramulus | |||
|
| ||||
| Xiong 2011 | Decoction | 30 d | 1. Xishangyihao-fang | 1. Achyranthis Radix, Coptidis Rhizoma, Curcumae Longae Radix, Scutellariae Radix, Taraxaci Herba |
| 2. Xishangerhao-fang | 2. achyranthis radix, akebiae caulis, angelicae gigantis radix, bletillae rhizoma, carthami flos, coptidis rhizoma, cyperi rhizoma, dipsaci radix, paeoniae radix, persicae semen | |||
| 3. Xishangsanhao-fang | 3. Akebiae Caulis, Angelicae Gigantis Radix, Astragali Radix, Chaenomelis Fructus, Cibotii Rhizoma, Cistanchis Herba, Cuscutae Semen, Homalomenae Rhizoma, Lumbricus, Visci Herba et Loranthi Ramulus | |||
|
| ||||
| Xu 2017 | Soluble granules, pill preparation | More than 4 w, tid | 1. Huoxuezhitong-Jiaonang | 1. Angelicae Gigantis Radix, Bomeolum, Eupolyphaga, Notoginseng Radix, Olibanum, Pyritum |
| 2. Jianbuhuqian-wan | 2. Aconiti Lateralis Radix Preparata, Angelicae Gigantis Radix, Araliae Continentalis Radix, Atractylodes Macrocephala Koidzumi, Chaenomelis Fructus, Cuscutae Semen, Cynomorium Songaricum Ruprecht, Dipsaci Radix, Eucommiae Cortex, Gentianae Macrophyllae Radix, Ginseng Radix, Lycii Fructus, Osterici Radix, Paeoniae Radix, Poria Sclerotium, Psoraleae Semen, Rehmanniae Radix Preparata, Saposhnikoviae Radix, Testudinis Plastrum | |||
|
| ||||
| Yang 2018 | Pill preparation | 12 m, bid | 1. Liuwei dihuang pills | 1. Alismatis Rhizoma, Corni Fructus, Dioscoreae Rhizoma, Moutan Cortex Radicis, Poria Sclerotium, Rehmanniae Radix Preparata |
Frequently used Chinese medicinal herbs.
| Number of times used | 8 | 6 | 5 | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chinese medicinal herbs | Angelicae Gigantis Radix | Achyranthis Radix | Cuscutae Semen | Astragali Radix |
Figure 2Assessment of the risk of bias.
Figure 3VAS score (subgroup analyzed by treatment types). AT: acupuncture treatment; CR: conventional rehabilitation; TCM: traditional Chinese medicine; HM: herbal medicine.
Figure 4VAS score (subgroup analyzed by treatment duration).
Figure 5ROM (subgroup analyzed by treatment types). AT: acupuncture treatment; HM: herbal medicine; TCM: traditional Chinese medicine; CR: conventional rehabilitation.
Figure 6Lysholm score (subgroup analyzed by treatment types). AT: acupuncture treatment; HM: herbal medicine; TCM: traditional Chinese medicine; CR: conventional rehabilitation.
Figure 7IKDC subjective score (subgroup analyzed by treatment types). AT: acupuncture treatment; HM: herbal medicine; TCM: traditional Chinese medicine; CR: conventional rehabilitation.
Figure 8IKDC subjective score (subgroup analyzed by treatment duration).
Summary of findings.
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects | Relative effect (95% CI) | Number of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Risk with CR | Risk with TCM + CR | |||||
| VAS | The mean VAS ranged from 1.06 to 4.02 points. | MD 0.74 points lower (0.93 lower to 0.54 lower) | — | 780 (13 RCTs) | ⊕⊕○○ | Patients who received TCM after ACLR had lower VAS score with some uncertainty due to performance bias and considerable heterogeneity. |
| ROM | — | SMD 1.19 SD higher (0.78 higher to 1.59 higher) | — | 540 (10 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊕○ | Patients who received TCM after ACLR had better ROM with moderate certainty due to considerable heterogeneity. |
| Lysholm score | The mean Lysholm score ranged from 49.2–91.79 points. | MD 5.62 points higher (3.93 higher to 7.32 higher) | — | 914 (14 RCTs) | ⊕⊕○○ | Patients who received TCM after ACLR had a better Lysholm score with some uncertainty due to performance bias and considerable heterogeneity. |
| IKDC subjective score | The mean IKDC subjective score ranged from 49.13 to 90.5 points. | MD 3.4 points higher (0.61 lower to 7.41 higher) | — | 376 (6 RCTs) | ⊕○○○ | There was no significant difference in the IKDC subjective score between the TCM and control groups with uncertainty due to performance bias, considerable heterogeneity, and low population size. |
| HSS score | The mean HSS score ranged from 56.18 to 92.24 points. | MD 6.79 points higher (1.27 lower to 14.86 higher) | — | 316 (3 RCTs) | ⊕○○○ | There was no significant difference in the HSS score between the TCM and control groups with uncertainty due to performance bias, considerable heterogeneity, and low population size. |
| Knee circumference follow-up: range 2 weeks to 3 months | — | SMD 1.72 SD lower (2.38 lower to 1.07 lower) | — | 227 (4 RCTs) | ⊕⊕○○ | Patients who received TCM after ACLR had lesser knee swelling with some uncertainty due to performance bias and considerable heterogeneity. |
| VAS | The mean VAS ranged from 1.06 to 4.02 points. | MD 0.74 points lower (0.93 lower to 0.54 lower) | — | 780 (13 RCTs) | ⊕⊕○○ | Patients who received TCM after ACLR had a lower VAS score with some uncertainty due to performance bias and considerable heterogeneity. |
aUnclear performance bias which may affect outcomes. bConsiderable heterogeneity was detected. However, most inconsistency was explained by differences in interventions, duration, and evaluation time points. cPopulation size less than 400. CI: confidence interval; MD: mean difference; SMD: standardized mean difference; VAS: visual analogue scale; ROM: range of motion; IKDC: International knee documentation committee; HSS: hospital for special surgery; RCTs: randomized controlled trials; ACLR: anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; TCM: traditional Chinese medicine.