| Literature DB >> 35586674 |
Yan Wang1, Tingquan Yan1, Xiaojing Mu1, Hong Dong1, Jinman Su2.
Abstract
Objective: To explore the effect of moxibustion instrument combined with ultrashort wave on pain and oxidative stress in elderly patients with knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Method: 84 elderly patients with knee osteoarthritis treated in our hospital from May 2020 to June 2021 were randomly divided into observation group (n = 42) and control group (n = 42). The observation group was treated with moxibustion instrument combined with ultrashort wave, while the control group was treated with moxibustion instrument. The clinical efficacy of the two groups was compared, and the pain of the two groups was evaluated by visual analogue scale (VAS). Lysholm knee joint score scale and osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) scale of Western Ontario and McMaster University were used to evaluate the knee joint function of the two groups, and the levels of interleukin-1β (IL-1β), tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α), serum superoxide dismutase (SOD), serum malondialdehyde (MDA), serum miR-155, and NLRP3 were detected in the two groups, and the comprehensive quality of life assessment questionnaire-74 was used, and the adverse reactions were compared between the two groups.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35586674 PMCID: PMC9110178 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3921021
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.809
Comparison of clinical efficacy between two groups (n(%)).
| Groups | Cure | Improve | Ineffective | Effective |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation group ( | 11 (26.19) | 27 (64.29) | 4 (9.52) | 38 (90.48) |
| Control group ( | 6 (14.29) | 23 (54.76) | 13 (30.95) | 29 (69.05) |
|
| 5.974 | |||
|
| 0.015 |
Comparison of the VAS score and the WOMAC score between the two groups (−x ± s, points).
| Groups | VAS score | Lysholm knee joint score | WOMAC score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | |
| Observation group ( | 6.21 ± 0.65 | 2.67 ± 0.82a | 42.00 ± 4.52 | 75.76 ± 6.10a | 29.26 ± 2.65 | 14.83 ± 1.71a |
| Control group ( | 6.48 ± 0.80 | 3.88 ± 1.33a | 40.80 ± 4.93 | 67.29 ± 5.58a | 29.07 ± 2.31 | 23.86 ± 2.35a |
|
| 1.647 | 5.046 | 1.153 | 6.645 | 0.351 | 20.103 |
|
| 0.103 | <0.001 | 0.252 | <0.001 | 0.726 | <0.001 |
Note: compared with the same group before treatment, aP < 0.05.
Comparison of inflammatory response indexes between two groups (−x ± s).
| Groups | IL-1 | TNF- | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | |
| Observation group ( | 38.26 ± 3.83 | 22.96 ± 1.82a | 88.65 ± 10.26 | 51.13 ± 5.09a |
| Control group ( | 37.77 ± 3.15 | 27.33 ± 2.58a | 87.74 ± 9.04 | 56.66 ± 5.08a |
|
| 0.637 | 8.962 | 0.435 | 4.986 |
|
| 0.526 | <0.001 | 0.665 | <0.001 |
Note: compared with the same group before treatment, aP < 0.05.
Comparison of oxidative stress reaction indexes between two groups (−x ± s).
| Groups | SOD (NU/mL) | MDA (nmol/L) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | |
| Observation group ( | 6.18 ± 1.52 | 11.10 ± 1.10a | 8.43 ± 1.07 | 5.50 ± 1.19a |
| Control group ( | 6.07 ± 1.22 | 9.22 ± 1.52a | 8.80 ± 1.12 | 6.98 ± 1.25a |
|
| 0.378 | 6.485 | 1.558 | 5.530 |
|
| 0.706 | <0.001 | 0.123 | <0.001 |
Note: compared with the same group before treatment, aP < 0.05.
Comparison of miR-155 and NLRP3 levels between two groups (−x ± s).
| Groups | miR-155 | NLRP3 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | |
| Observation group ( | 3.82 ± 1.16 | 1.85 ± 0.60a | 52.20 ± 5.44 | 81.48 ± 8.29a |
| Control group ( | 4.03 ± 1.42 | 2.23 ± 0.71a | 52.55 ± 5.73 | 70.14 ± 7.02a |
|
| 0.731 | 4.619 | 0.291 | 6.764 |
|
| 0.467 | <0.001 | 0.772 | <0.001 |
Note: compared with the same group before treatment, aP < 0.05.
GQOLI-74 score between two groups (−x ± s).
| Groups | Somatic function | Psychological function | Social function | Material life function | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | |
| Observation group ( | 44.29 ± 3.78 | 70.67 ± 5.51a | 46.62 ± 4.13 | 70.19 ± 6.92a | 46.79 ± 4.38 | 65.60 ± 6.30a | 49.43 ± 5.38 | 72.81 ± 4.81a |
| Control group ( | 44.62 ± 6.79 | 57.64 ± 4.67a | 46.38 ± 4.15 | 58.79 ± 5.04a | 47.10 ± 3.21 | 59.26 ± 5.51a | 49.52 ± 5.45 | 61.67 ± 6.89a |
|
| 0.278 | 11.691 | 1.419 | 8.633 | 0.369 | 4.904 | 0.081 | 8.590 |
|
| 0.782 | <0.001 | 0.160 | <0.001 | 0.713 | <0.001 | 0.936 | <0.001 |
Note: compared with the same group before treatment, aP < 0.05.