| Literature DB >> 36159565 |
Hai-Jing Diao1, Fei Li2, Zi-Meng Lv1, Hai-Ping Shi1, Ya-Peng Nie1, Zheng Gan1, Ye-Fu Li3, Guo-Rui Luan3.
Abstract
Objective: We aim to explore the clinical therapeutic effect of alternative wave electroacupuncture combined with Lee's naprapathy therapy on knee osteoarthritis (KOA) (blood stasis due to qi stagnation). Method: 122 patients with KOA treated in our hospital from January 2018 to October 2021 were randomly grouped into a combined group (n = 61) and a control group (n = 61). The combined group was treated with alternative wave electroacupuncture combined with Lee's naprapathy, while the control group was treated with alternative wave electroacupuncture alone. Clinical efficacy of the two groups was observed. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Lysholm Scale, Indexes of Severity for Osteoarthritis (ISOA), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) were compared before and after treatment, followed up for 3 months and 6 months. The adverse reactions of the two groups were observed. Result: The overall response rate of the combined group (96.72%) was higher than that of the control group (81.97%), and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). After treatment and follow-up for 3 months and 6 months, the Lysholm score of the combined group was higher than that of the control group, while the VAS, ISOA, and WOMAC scores were lower than those of the control group, and the difference between the two was statistically significant (P < 0.05). There were no serious adverse reactions in both groups (P > 0.05).Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36159565 PMCID: PMC9492352 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2252551
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.650
Comparison of clinical efficacy (cases (%)).
| Groups | Clinical cure | Markedly improvement | Improvement | Failure | Total effectiveness |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Combined ( | 17 (27.87) | 36 (59.02) | 6 (9.84) | 2 (3.28) | 59 (96.72) |
| Control ( | 10 (16.39) | 25 (40.98) | 15 (24.59) | 11 (18.03) | 50 (81.97) |
|
| 6.974 | ||||
|
| 0.008 |
Comparison of VAS and Lysholm (x ± s, scores).
| Groups | VAS | Lysholm | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | 3 M follow-up | 6 M follow-up | Before treatment | After treatment | 3 M follow-up | 6 M follow-up | |
| Combined ( | 7.39 + 0.76 | 4.97 + 1.47a | 1.67 + 0.98a | 2.75 + 1.03a | 59.13 + 5.35 | 77.28 + 6.70a | 76.21 + 5.23a | 74.77 + 6.29a |
| Control ( | 7.31 + 0.92 | 5.70 + 1.09a | 2.75 + 1.03a | 4.34 + 1.05a | 58.18 + 4.13 | 64.59 + 4.51a | 69.89 + 4.97a | 71.80 + 6.90a |
|
| 0.536 | 3.151 | 6.180 | 8.467 | 1.098 | 12.262 | 6.847 | 2.482 |
|
| 0.593 | 0.002 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.274 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.014 |
Note. a P was <0.05 compared with that before treatment in the same group.
Comparison of ISOA (x ± s, scores).
| Groups | Pain or discomfort | Max. walking distance | ADL | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | 3 M follow-up | 6 M follow-up | Before treatment | After treatment | 3 M follow-up | 6 M follow-up | Before treatment | After treatment | 3 M follow-up | 6 M follow-up | |
| Combined ( | 4.98 + 0.79 | 2.49 + 0.79a | 2.38 + 0.58a | 2.66 + 0.57a | 4.82 + 0.85 | 2.77 + 0.64a | 1.98 + 0.56a | 2.36 + 0.68a | 4.77 + 0.62 | 2.74 + 0.77a | 2.10 + 0.72a | 2.28 + 0.78a |
| Control ( | 5.10 + 0.62 | 3.85 + 0.83a | 3.02 + 0.65a | 3.23 + 0.69a | 4.84 + 0.66 | 3.10 + 0.81a | 2.77 + 0.67a | 3.21 + 0.82a | 4.87 + 0.74 | 3.43 + 0.96a | 2.87 + 0.78a | 3.07 + 0.87a |
|
| 0.893 | 9.266 | 5.746 | 4.981 | 0.119 | 2.476 | 7.037 | 6.240 | 0.797 | 4.373 | 5.638 | 5.257 |
|
| 0.373 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.905 | 0.015 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.427 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Note. a P was <0.05 compared with that before treatment in the same group.
Comparison of WOMAC (x ± s, scores).
| Groups | Arthrodynia | Anchylosis | Joint function | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | After treatment | 3 M follow-up | 6 M follow-up | Before treatment | After treatment | 3 M follow-up | 6 M follow-up | Before treatment | After treatment | 3 M follow-up | 6 M follow-up | |
| Combined ( | 11.70 + 3.42 | 4.80 + 0.96a | 2.72 + 1.36a | 2.87 + 1.02a | 5.61 + 0.90 | 2.64 + 0.98a | 1.93 + 0.36a | 1.89 + 1.02a | 37.97 + 2.99 | 15.44 + 1.59a | 12.00 + 2.88a | 16.02 + 1.73a |
| Control ( | 11.90 + 2.72 | 6.90 + 2.26a | 6.21 + 1.25 | 6.56 + 1.88a | 5.67 + 1.04 | 4.31 + 1.25a | 3.39 + 1.31 | 3.62 + 1.13a | 38.56 + 3.75 | 22.33 + 2.79a | 19.38 + 4.44a | 20.67 + 3.80a |
|
| 0.352 | 6.663 | 14.772 | 13.481 | 0.372 | 8.228 | 8.405 | 8.932 | 0.961 | 16.776 | 10.881 | 8.707 |
|
| 0.726 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.711 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.338 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Note. a P was <0.05 compared with that before treatment in the same group.