單次電針灸治療及表面電針灸治療對頸痛病患之療效比較

Translated title of the contribution: Comparison of the Therapeutic Effects of One-Shot Electroacupuncture and Surface Electroacupuncture in Cervical Pain Patients

Ru-Lan Hsieh, Wen-Chung Lee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate the therapeutic effects of one-shot electroacu-puncture (EA) versus one-shot surface electroacupuncture (SEA) in cervical pain patients. A total of 51 patients were recruited in this randomized control study. Control group (n=13) received medication only. EA group (n=21) received medication plus one-shot of EA.SEA group (n=17) received medication plus one-shot of SEA. Therapeutic effects were measured by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), body surface score, pain pressure threshold and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. The therapeutic effects were shown immediately after the one-shot treatment in both the EA group and the SEA group. In the EA group, the VAS improved 1.99 (p<0.0001), and body surface score was improved 3.52 (p<0.001). In the SEA group, the VAS was improved 1.70 (p<0.0001), and body surface score was improved 1.96 (p<0.005) as well. One week after the treatment, the VAS value in the EA group was improved 2.71 (p<0.0001), whereas the VAS value in the SEA group was improved 2.67 (p<0.0001). The pain surface scores in all three groups had decreased significantly after treatment, but no significant difference was found. Quebec back pain disability scale was improved 10.0 (p<0.005) in the EA group, and was improved 12.4 (p<0.005) in the SEA group 3 days after treatment. One week after treatment, the improved scales were shown with 18.6 (p<0.0005), 22.7 (p<0.005) respectively in the EA group and the SEA group. The improvements were not shown with significant difference between the two groups. Our conclusion is that one-shot treatment of both EA and SEA is effective for pain relief and functional disability improvement in cervical pain patients. Therefore, one-shot SEA treatment is more advised due to the rarity of side effect and the convenience of application.
Original languageTraditional Chinese
Pages (from-to)1-7
Number of pages7
Journal台灣復健醫學雜誌
Volume30
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2002
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Electroacupuncture
Neck Pain
Therapeutic Uses
Punctures
Visual Analog Scale
Quebec
Back Pain
Therapeutics
Pain
Pain Threshold
Pressure

Cite this

單次電針灸治療及表面電針灸治療對頸痛病患之療效比較. / Hsieh, Ru-Lan; Lee, Wen-Chung .

In: 台灣復健醫學雜誌, Vol. 30, No. 1, 2002, p. 1-7.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{cb138ca9b05b4f648bf19a9c076d33d0,
title = "單次電針灸治療及表面電針灸治療對頸痛病患之療效比較",
abstract = "The objective of this study was to investigate the therapeutic effects of one-shot electroacu-puncture (EA) versus one-shot surface electroacupuncture (SEA) in cervical pain patients. A total of 51 patients were recruited in this randomized control study. Control group (n=13) received medication only. EA group (n=21) received medication plus one-shot of EA.SEA group (n=17) received medication plus one-shot of SEA. Therapeutic effects were measured by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), body surface score, pain pressure threshold and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. The therapeutic effects were shown immediately after the one-shot treatment in both the EA group and the SEA group. In the EA group, the VAS improved 1.99 (p<0.0001), and body surface score was improved 3.52 (p<0.001). In the SEA group, the VAS was improved 1.70 (p<0.0001), and body surface score was improved 1.96 (p<0.005) as well. One week after the treatment, the VAS value in the EA group was improved 2.71 (p<0.0001), whereas the VAS value in the SEA group was improved 2.67 (p<0.0001). The pain surface scores in all three groups had decreased significantly after treatment, but no significant difference was found. Quebec back pain disability scale was improved 10.0 (p<0.005) in the EA group, and was improved 12.4 (p<0.005) in the SEA group 3 days after treatment. One week after treatment, the improved scales were shown with 18.6 (p<0.0005), 22.7 (p<0.005) respectively in the EA group and the SEA group. The improvements were not shown with significant difference between the two groups. Our conclusion is that one-shot treatment of both EA and SEA is effective for pain relief and functional disability improvement in cervical pain patients. Therefore, one-shot SEA treatment is more advised due to the rarity of side effect and the convenience of application.",
keywords = "頸痛, 電針灸, 表面電針灸, cervical pain, electroacupuncture, surface electroacupuncture",
author = "Ru-Lan Hsieh and Wen-Chung Lee",
year = "2002",
language = "繁體中文",
volume = "30",
pages = "1--7",
journal = "台灣復健醫學雜誌",
issn = "1025-3009",
publisher = "臺灣復健醫學會",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - 單次電針灸治療及表面電針灸治療對頸痛病患之療效比較

AU - Hsieh, Ru-Lan

AU - Lee, Wen-Chung

PY - 2002

Y1 - 2002

N2 - The objective of this study was to investigate the therapeutic effects of one-shot electroacu-puncture (EA) versus one-shot surface electroacupuncture (SEA) in cervical pain patients. A total of 51 patients were recruited in this randomized control study. Control group (n=13) received medication only. EA group (n=21) received medication plus one-shot of EA.SEA group (n=17) received medication plus one-shot of SEA. Therapeutic effects were measured by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), body surface score, pain pressure threshold and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. The therapeutic effects were shown immediately after the one-shot treatment in both the EA group and the SEA group. In the EA group, the VAS improved 1.99 (p<0.0001), and body surface score was improved 3.52 (p<0.001). In the SEA group, the VAS was improved 1.70 (p<0.0001), and body surface score was improved 1.96 (p<0.005) as well. One week after the treatment, the VAS value in the EA group was improved 2.71 (p<0.0001), whereas the VAS value in the SEA group was improved 2.67 (p<0.0001). The pain surface scores in all three groups had decreased significantly after treatment, but no significant difference was found. Quebec back pain disability scale was improved 10.0 (p<0.005) in the EA group, and was improved 12.4 (p<0.005) in the SEA group 3 days after treatment. One week after treatment, the improved scales were shown with 18.6 (p<0.0005), 22.7 (p<0.005) respectively in the EA group and the SEA group. The improvements were not shown with significant difference between the two groups. Our conclusion is that one-shot treatment of both EA and SEA is effective for pain relief and functional disability improvement in cervical pain patients. Therefore, one-shot SEA treatment is more advised due to the rarity of side effect and the convenience of application.

AB - The objective of this study was to investigate the therapeutic effects of one-shot electroacu-puncture (EA) versus one-shot surface electroacupuncture (SEA) in cervical pain patients. A total of 51 patients were recruited in this randomized control study. Control group (n=13) received medication only. EA group (n=21) received medication plus one-shot of EA.SEA group (n=17) received medication plus one-shot of SEA. Therapeutic effects were measured by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), body surface score, pain pressure threshold and Quebec Back Pain Disability Scale. The therapeutic effects were shown immediately after the one-shot treatment in both the EA group and the SEA group. In the EA group, the VAS improved 1.99 (p<0.0001), and body surface score was improved 3.52 (p<0.001). In the SEA group, the VAS was improved 1.70 (p<0.0001), and body surface score was improved 1.96 (p<0.005) as well. One week after the treatment, the VAS value in the EA group was improved 2.71 (p<0.0001), whereas the VAS value in the SEA group was improved 2.67 (p<0.0001). The pain surface scores in all three groups had decreased significantly after treatment, but no significant difference was found. Quebec back pain disability scale was improved 10.0 (p<0.005) in the EA group, and was improved 12.4 (p<0.005) in the SEA group 3 days after treatment. One week after treatment, the improved scales were shown with 18.6 (p<0.0005), 22.7 (p<0.005) respectively in the EA group and the SEA group. The improvements were not shown with significant difference between the two groups. Our conclusion is that one-shot treatment of both EA and SEA is effective for pain relief and functional disability improvement in cervical pain patients. Therefore, one-shot SEA treatment is more advised due to the rarity of side effect and the convenience of application.

KW - 頸痛

KW - 電針灸

KW - 表面電針灸

KW - cervical pain

KW - electroacupuncture

KW - surface electroacupuncture

M3 - 文章

VL - 30

SP - 1

EP - 7

JO - 台灣復健醫學雜誌

JF - 台灣復健醫學雜誌

SN - 1025-3009

IS - 1

ER -