| Literature DB >> 35399845 |
Zhengwen Sun1, Xiaoli Qu2, Tianmei Wang3, Feng Liu4, Xue Li5.
Abstract
Objective: To observe the effect of warm acupuncture combined with meloxicam and comprehensive nursing on pain improvement and joint function in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Method: Eighty-one patients with KOA were randomly divided into control group (CG), traditional Chinese medicine group (TCMG), and combined group (JG). The CG was treated with meloxicam. The TCMG received warm acupuncture treatment. The JG was treated with meloxicam combined with warm acupuncture. Three groups were given comprehensive nursing intervention, and the course of treatment was 4 weeks. Knee function was assessed by knee pain, activity, stability, walking ability, and ability to walk up and down stairs. Improvement time of clinical symptoms of patients was assessed from knee pain, swelling, and movement limitation. Pain mediators (prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), substance P (SP), dopamine (DA), 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)) were detected by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Oxidative stress indicators (superoxide dismutase (SOD) and malondialdehyde (MDA)) of the enrolled patients were detected by water-soluble tetrazolium-1 (WST-1) and the thiobarbituric acid (TBA) method. The clinical efficacy was assessed by the visual analog scale (VAS) score.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35399845 PMCID: PMC8989609 DOI: 10.1155/2022/9167956
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Comparison of general clinical data among the three groups (n).
| Index | TCMG | CG | JG |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||
| Gender | |||||
| Female | 16 | 17 | 14 | 0.710 | >0.05 |
| Male | 11 | 10 | 13 | ||
| Age (years) | |||||
| >60 | 15 | 16 | 18 | 0.723 | >0.05 |
| ≤60 | 12 | 11 | 9 | ||
| Course of disease (years) | |||||
| >3 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 0.333 | >0.05 |
| ≤3 | 17 | 18 | 19 | ||
| Education | |||||
| Primary and below | 4 | 5 | 5 | 0.602 | >0.05 |
| Junior and senior secondary | 16 | 14 | 16 | ||
| Junior college or above | 7 | 8 | 6 | ||
| Pathogenic site | |||||
| Left knee | 10 | 12 | 10 | 1.818 | >0.05 |
| Right knee | 9 | 11 | 10 | ||
| Both knees | 8 | 4 | 7 | ||
Comparison of knee function scores between the three groups before and after treatment.
| Group | Treatment time | Pain | Mobility | Stability | Walking ability | Ability to walk up and down stairs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CG | BT | 78.33 ± 6.41 | 50.74 ± 5.61 | 50.93 ± 3.53 | 59.52 ± 6.12 | 50.30 ± 3.01 |
| AT | 68.96 ± 6.38 | 63.30 ± 5.37 | 58.67 ± 5.34 | 67.22 ± 7.52 | 62.93 ± 6.37 | |
|
| ||||||
| TCMG | BT | 78.30 ± 6.16 | 51.37 ± 5.79 | 50.85 ± 3.47 | 57.74 ± 6.58 | 51.37 ± 3.35 |
| AT | 65.89 ± 6.30 | 66.81 ± 5.94 | 61.67 ± 5.34 | 71.37 ± 6.84 | 65.70 ± 6.37 | |
|
| ||||||
| JG | BT | 77.33 ± 6.57 | 50.44 ± 5.47 | 51.00 ± 3.57 | 61.26 ± 6.42 | 51.30 ± 3.61 |
| AT | 55.89 ± 6.44 | 74.89 ± 5.51 | 70.59 ± 7.88 | 79.19 ± 7.47 | 69.93 ± 7.20 | |
|
| ||||||
| t0 | 1.781 | 2.284 | 2.066 | 2.121 | 1.602 | |
| P0 | >0.05 | >0.05 | >0.05 | >0.05 | >0.05 | |
| t1 | 7.496 | 7.831 | 6.512 | 5.865 | 3.783 | |
| P1 | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 | |
| t2 | 5.769 | 5.181 | 4.874 | 4.008 | 2.283 | |
| P2 | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 | |
Note. BT: before treatment; AT: after treatment; T0, P0: the comparison between the CG and the TCMG after treatment; T1, P1: the comparison between the CG and the JG after treatment. T2, P2: the comparison between the TCMG and the JG after treatment.
Figure 1Comparison of pain mediators (PGE2 (a), SP (b), DA (c), and 5-HT (d)) in the three groups on 0 d, 7 d, 14 d, and 28 d.
Comparison of clinical efficacy among the three groups.
| Group |
| Significant effect | Effective | Invalid | Total effective rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CG | 27 | 11 | 10 | 6 | 21 (77.78) |
| TCMG | 27 | 13 | 9 | 5 | 22 (81.48) |
| JG | 27 | 22 | 4 | 1 | 26 (96.30) |
|
| 0.310 | ||||
| P0 | >0.05 | ||||
|
| 9.810 | ||||
| P1 | <0.05 | ||||
|
| 6.904 | ||||
| P2 | <0.05 |
Note. χ 20, P0: the comparison between the CG and the TCMG; χ21, P1: the comparison between the CG and the JG; χ22, P2: the comparison between the TCMG and the JG.
Comparison of improvement time of clinical symptoms among the three groups.
| Group |
| Improvement time of clinical symptoms/d | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knee pain | Swelling | Activity limitation | ||
| CG | 27 | 15.44 ± 1.12 | 8.96 ± 0.81 | 19.59 ± 1.12 |
| TCMG | 27 | 14.96 ± 0.85 | 8.48 ± 1.05 | 18.44 ± 1.12 |
| JG | 27 | 8.93 ± 0.78 | 5.93 ± 0.83 | 10.89 ± 0.85 |
| t0 | 1.775 | 1.887 | 3.768 | |
| P0 | >0.05 | >0.05 | <0.05 | |
| t1 | 24.790 | 13.640 | 32.230 | |
| P1 | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 | |
| t2 | 27.110 | 9.920 | 27.940 | |
| P2 | <0.05 | <0.05 | <0.05 | |
Note. T0, P0: the comparison between the CG and the TCMG; T1, P1: the comparison between the CG and the JG; T2, P2, the comparison between the TCMG and the JG.
Figure 2Comparison of oxidative stress index levels in the three groups after 0 d, 7 d, 14 d, and 28 d.