| Literature DB >> 35341011 |
XiangDong Tian1, Xia Li1, LiQun Zhou2, JiPing Zhao1, XiaoMin Li3, Ye Huang3, TianSong Ding3.
Abstract
Purpose: To explore the clinical effect of electroacupuncture in promoting the healing of the osteotomy area after high tibial osteotomy.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35341011 PMCID: PMC8947899 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6428759
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.238
Comparison of general baseline data between the two groups.
| Index | Observation group( | Control group( | Statistics |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 64.76 ± 6.07 | 64.84 ± 8.84 |
| 0.970 |
| Gender (male/female) | 8/17 | 6/19 |
| 0.529 |
| Affected limb (left/right) | 11/14 | 12/13 |
| 0.777 |
| BMI index | 26.37 ± 3.38 | 28.92 ± 3.59 |
| 0.147 |
Figure 1(a) Electroacupuncture treatment instrument. (b) Schematic diagram of electroacupuncture treatment.
Comparison of Lane-Sandhu X-ray scores of fracture healing between the two groups (, points).
| Group | Number | 4 weeks | 8 weeks | 10 weeks | 12 weeks | 14 weeks |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation | 25 | 2.08 ± 1.08 | 5.68 ± 1.38 | 8.72 ± 1.34 | 12.00 ± 0.00 | 12.00 ± 0.00 | 815.810 | <0.001 |
| Control | 25 | 1.08 ± 0.70 | 3.92 ± 1.22 | 6.96 ± 1.27 | 9.16 ± 1.21 | 11.04 ± 6.76 | 245.814 | <0.001 |
|
| -3.417 | -3.976 | -4.014 | -6.310 | -5.360 | |||
|
| 0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Figure 2(a) Results of Lane-Sandhu X-ray score in the observation group. (b) Results of Lane-Sandhu X-ray score in the control group.
Comparison of soft tissue healing between the two groups.
| Group | Number of cases | Incision healing time | Swelling time |
|---|---|---|---|
| Observation group | 25 | 10.88 ± 1.86 | 10.24 ± 1.81 |
| Control group | 25 | 13.40 ± 1.87 | 13.52 ± 2.04 |
|
| -4.782 | -6.008 | |
|
| <0.001 | <0.001 |
Comparison of follow-up data between the two groups (, points).
| Index | Point in time | Observation group ( | Control group ( | Statistics |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VAS | Preoperative | 7.92 ± 1.04 | 7.52 ± 0.87 |
| 0.179 |
| 1 week after treatment | 2.20 ± 0.96 | 3.08 ± 0.86 |
| 0.002 | |
| 4 weeks after treatment | 0.80 ± 0.71 | 1.48 ± 0.77 |
| 0.003 | |
| 8 weeks after treatment | 0.44 ± 0.51 | 1.04 ± 0.79 |
| 0.006 | |
|
| 371.121 | 436.465 | |||
|
| <0.001 | <0.001 | |||
|
| |||||
| WOMAC | Preoperative | 117.92 ± 18.13 | 120.40 ± 17.70 |
| 0.627 |
| 1 week after treatment | 95.15 ± 2.44 | 99.68 ± 3.66 |
| <0.001 | |
| 4 weeks after treatment | 80.36 ± 2.29 | 87.12 ± 2.13 |
| <0.001 | |
| 8 weeks after treatment | 73.96 ± 4.39 | 80.36 ± 2.31 |
| <0.001 | |
|
| 184.189 | 144.782 | |||
|
| <0.001 | <0.001 | |||
|
| |||||
| Lysholm | Preoperative | 48.68 ± 5.18 | 48.08 ± 4.00 |
| 0.649 |
| 1 week after treatment | 78.80 ± 2.02 | 65.00 ± 4.61 |
| <0.001 | |
| 4 weeks after treatment | 90.88 ± 1.86 | 83.80 ± 3.16 |
| <0.001 | |
| 8 weeks after treatment | 92.20 ± 2.04 | 87.52 ± 2.79 |
| <0.001 | |
|
| 760.937 | 755.786 | |||
|
| <0.001 | <0.001 | |||
Figure 3(a) Results of VAS score in the observation group. (b) Results of VAS score in the control group.
Figure 4(a) Results of WOMAC score in the observation group. (b) Results of WOMAC score in the control group.
Figure 5(a) Results of Lysholm score in the observation group. (b) Results of Lysholm score in the control group.