药罐法与刺络放血法治疗慢性腰痛疗效对比研究

Comparative Study on the Therapeutic Efficacy between Medicinal Cupping and Bloodletting for Chronic Low Back Pain

目的观察药罐法与刺络放血法治疗腰椎间盘突出症和非特异性腰痛的疗效差异。方法将60例腰椎间盘突出症患者随机分为治疗1组和对照1组,每组30例。将60例非特异性腰痛患者随机分为治疗2组和对照2组,每组30例。治疗1组和治疗2组采用药罐法治疗,对照1组和对照2组采用刺络放血法治疗。观察各组治疗前后VAS评分及Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)的变化情况。结果治疗1组、治疗2组和对照2组治疗后VAS评分及ODI与同组治疗前比较,差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。对照1组治疗后VAS评分与同组治疗前比较,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05);对照1组治疗后ODI与同组治疗前比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。对照1组治疗后ODI与对照2组比较,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论药罐法与刺络放血法均是治疗慢性腰痛的有效方法,其中药罐法改善患者ODI优于刺络放血法。

Objective To compare the therapeutic efficacy between medicinal cupping and collateral-pricking bloodletting therapy in treating lumbar intervertebral disc herniation（LIDH） and non-specific low back pain. Method Sixty LIDH patients were randomized into treatment group 1 and control group 1, 30 cases in each group. Sixty non-specific low back pain patients were randomized into treatment group 2 and control group 2, 30 cases in each group. Treatment group 1 and 2 were intervened by medicinal cupping, while control group 1 and 2 were by collateral-pricking bloodletting. The Visual Analogue Scale（VAS） and Oswestry Disability Index（ODI） were observed before and after intervention. Result The VAS and ODI scores were significantly changed after intervention in treatment group 1, treatment group 2, and control group 2（P〈0.05）. The VAS score was significantly changed after intervention in control group 1（P〈0.05）; the ODI score didn＇t show significant change after intervention in control group 1（P〉0.05）. After treatment, there was a significant difference in comparing the ODI score between control group 1 and control group 2（P〈0.05）. Conclusion Medicinal cupping and collateral-pricking bloodletting are both effective in treating chronic low back pain, and medicinal cupping has its advantage in improving ODI compared to the bloodletting therapy.