| Literature DB >> 35634176 |
Liu Yan1, Wang Chenni1, Liu Fang1.
Abstract
In order to study the efficacy of TCM rehabilitation for lumbar disc herniation, it is suggested to compare the effects of hot compress, ordinary sandbag, or hot compress with traditional Chinese medicine. A total of 79 patients with Qi stagnation and blood stasis syndrome in a traditional Chinese medicine hospital who met the diagnostic criteria of LDH and the syndrome classification in the diagnostic efficacy criteria of traditional Chinese medicine were selected. The subjects were randomly divided into groups A, B, and C: group A (26 cases) was the sandbag hot compress dry pregroup and received the simple sandbag hot compress scheme; group B (26 cases) was a simple traditional Chinese medicine hot compress intervention group, which received traditional Chinese medicine hot compress scheme; group C (27 cases) was the intervention group of traditional Chinese medicine sandbag combined with hot compress and received the scheme of traditional Chinese medicine sandbag combined with hot compress. In addition to the different hot compress media used, other aspects remained the same among the three groups. The treatment time of each hot compress was 40 min, twice a day for 2 weeks. A total of 14 cases fell out during the intervention process, and 65 subjects completed the intervention process. The experiment showed that there was no significant difference among the three groups (P > 0.05). The test results were confirmed.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35634176 PMCID: PMC9132704 DOI: 10.1155/2022/1288233
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Appl Bionics Biomech ISSN: 1176-2322 Impact factor: 1.664
Figure 1Flow chart of lumbar rehabilitation.
Subjective evaluation of images.
| Subjective evaluation | Image quality characteristics |
|---|---|
| 1 | Very serious obstruction of viewing |
| 2 | Hinder viewing |
| 3 | A slight hindrance to the viewer |
| 4 | Do not hinder viewing |
| 5 | There is no deterioration in image quality |
Figure 2Selection and determination process of research objects.
Figure 3Technical roadmap.
Sociodemographic data and disease-related data of patients in the three groups.
| Project | Total number (65) | Group A ( | Group B ( | Group C ( | F/ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 55.1 ± 15.6 | 51.9 ± 17.4 | 56.4 ± 16.8 | 56.8 ± 12.4 | 0.65 | 0.53a |
| Gender | 2.99 | 0.22b | ||||
| Male | 33 (50.8%) | 3 (61.9%) | 12 (54.5%) | 8 (36.4%) | ||
| Female | 32 (49.2%) | 8 (38.1%) | 10 (45.5%) | 14 (63.6%) | ||
| BMI | 24.6 ± 3.4 | 24.1 ± 2.3 | 24.3 ± 3.1 | 25.2 ± 4.4 | 0.74 | 0.48a |
| Course of disease | 0.28 | 0.99b | ||||
| < 6 months | 29 (44.6%) | 9 (42.9%) | 10 (45.5%) | 10 (45.5%) | ||
| 6-12 months | 13 (20.0%) | 5 (23.8%) | 4 (18.2%) | 4 (18.2%) | ||
| >12 months | 23 (35.4%) | 7 (33.3%) | 8 (36.4%) | 8 (36.4%) | ||
| Diseased segment | 0.97 | 0.91b | ||||
| L4-L5 | 13 (20.0%) | 5 (23.8%) | 3 (13.6%) | 5 (22.7%) | ||
| L5-S1 | 18 (27.7%) | 5 (23.8%) | 7 (31.8%) | 6 (27.3%) | ||
| L4-S1 | 34 (52.3%) | 11 (52.4%) | 7 (31.8%) | 11 (50.0%) |
JOA lower abdominal pain scores and scores of each dimension of the three groups at different time points.
| Grouping | T0 | T1 | T2 | T3 |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JOA low back pain score | A | 10.33 ± 3.48 | 12.81 ± 3.16∗∗ | 16.90 ± 2.8∗∗ | 20.67 ± 2.96∗∗ | 149.41 | <0.001 |
| B | 10.05 ± 3.05 | 13.32 ± 2.85∗∗ | 17.59 ± 3.23∗∗ | 20.91 ± 2.22∗∗ | 115.64 | <0.001 | |
| C | 11.45 ± 2.60 | 15.27 ± 2.51∗∗a | 19.77 ± 3.37∗∗a | 23.82 ± 2.87∗∗ab | 130.81 | <0.001 | |
| F | 1.30 | 4.53 | 4.88 | 9.20 | |||
| P | 0.279 | 0.015 | 0.011 | <0.001 | |||
| Subjective symptom score | A | 2.24 ± 1.25 | 3.23 ± 0.94∗∗ | 4.52 ± 1.O8∗∗ | 5.76 ± 0.62∗∗ | 77.48 | <0.001 |
| B | 2.41 ± 1.14 | 3.91 ± 0.68∗∗ | 4.32 ± 1.29∗∗ | 5.82 ± 0.66∗∗ | 99.35 | <0.001 | |
| C | 2.32 ± 1.29 | 3.55 ± 1.22∗∗ | 5.18 ± 0.91∗∗a | 6.18 ± 0.73∗∗ | 99.81 | <0.001 | |
| F | 1.91 | 2.34 | 3.68 | 2.47 | |||
| P | 0.225 | 0.105 | 0.031 | 0.093 | |||
| Clinical sign score | A | 3.67 ± 0.73 | 3.71 ± 0.72 | 3.95 ± 0.50∗∗ | 4.19 ± 0.51∗∗ | 8.32 | <0.001 |
| B | 3.86 ± 0.35 | 3.91 ± 0.29 | 4.03 ± 0.76 | 4.10 ± 0.51 | 2.64 | <0.001 | |
| C | 3.17 ± 1.01 | 4.27 ± 1.03∗∗b | 4.82 ± 0.96∗∗ | 5.45 ± 0.80∗∗b | 29.25 | <0.001 | |
| F | 1.74 | 4.21 | 0.49 | 3.82 | |||
| P | 0.304 | 0.019 | 0.609 | 0.028 | |||
| Daily activity score | A | 3.43 ± 2.75 | 4.95 ± 2.87∗∗ | 7.29 ± 2.17∗∗ | 9.76 ± 2.36∗∗ | 80.92 | <0.001 |
| B | 3.73 ± 2.55 | 5.50 ± 2.48∗∗ | 8.23 ± 2.31∗∗ | 10.14 ± 2.03∗∗ | 61.59 | <0.001 | |
| C | 3.32 ± 2.90 | 7.59 ± 1.62∗∗ab | 9.73 ± 2.31∗∗a | 12.22 ± 1.95∗∗ab | 74.31 | <0.001 | |
| F | 1.34 | 4.53 | 4.89 | 9.20 | |||
| P | 0.243 | 0.001 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Comparison of JOA low back pain score improvement rate among the three groups after intervention.
| Grouping |
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JOA improvement rate | 0.56 ± 0.10 | 0.57 ± 0.11 | 0.7 ± 0.18 | 13.11 | 0.002 |
Comparison of curative effects of three groups after intervention.
| Grouping | Clinical treatment | Remarkable effect | Effective | Invalid |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | 0 | 8 | 13 | 0 |
| Group B | 0 | 8 | 14 | 0 |
| Group C | 0 | 15 | 7 | 0 |
NRS pain scores of three groups at different time points.
| Grouping | TO | T1 | T2 | T3 |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | 7.14 ± 0.65 | 6.10 ± 0.61 | 5.10 ± 0.76 | 3.10 ± 0.72 | 80.95 | <0.01 |
| Group B | 7.14 ± 0.64 | 5.68 ± 0.76 | 4.10 ± 0.76 | 2.13 ± 0.68 | 61.58 | <0.01 |
| Group C |
| 5.25 ± 0.85 | 3.89 ± 0.88 | 1.85 ± 0.83 | 74.28 | <0.01 |
|
| 1.24 | 6.92 | 9.94 | 14.04 | ||
|
| 0.297 | 0.002 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Number of adverse events during the three intervention methods.
| Grouping | Group A | Group B | Group C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scald | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Erythema | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Dermatitis | 0 | 1 | 0 |