ABSTRACT
Objective To investigate the clinical efficacy of combined acupuncture and medicine for external hemorrhoids. Method Included 68 patients with external hemorrhoids were allocated, in order of visits, to acupuncture, external application and acupuncture-medicine groups. The acupuncture group received acupuncture at points Chengshan (BL57) and Dachangshu (BL25); the external application group, external application of Divine Pain-Relief Decoction; the acupuncture-medicine group, comprehensive intervention. Result The pain was markedly relieved (P<0.01) but the severity of swelling and the size of hemorrhoids were less reduced (P<0.01, P<0.05) in the acupuncture group compared with the external application group. The therapeutic effect was better in acupuncturemedicine group than in the acupuncture and external application groups with more reduced size of hemorrhoids (P<0.01, P<0.05), lower VAS score (P<0.05, P<0.01) and lower swelling severity score (P<0.01, P<0.05).Conclusion Acupuncture is more effective in relieving the pain, while external application of herbal medicine is more effective in reducing the severity of swelling and the size of hemorrhoids. The combined use of acupuncture and medicine can synergically enhance the clinical therapeutic effect.
ABSTRACT
Objective: To observe the clinical effect and syndrome scores improvements of herbal cake-partitioned moxibustion (HPM) and ginger-partitioned moxibustion (GPM) in treating ulcerative colitis (UC). Methods:A total of 65 eligible cases were randomly divided into a HPM group (n=32) and a GPM group (n=33) according to their visiting order. Bilateral Tianshu (ST 25) and Dachangshu (BL 25) were selected for the HPM or the GPM treatment once daily, 12 d as a treatment course with a 3-day interval, 6 courses in all. The clinical effect, syndrome scale and Mayo scale were evaluated and compared between the two groups. Results:Of the 65 cases enrolled, 2 cases dropped out in the HPM group and 3 cases dropped out in the GPM group, 30 cases of each group finished the treatment courses. The total effective rate is 93.3% in HPM group and 86.7% in the GPM group, there was no statistically significant difference in the total effective rate between the two groups (P>0.05); there were statistically significant differences between the two groups in score evaluation of lasting time of abdominal pain and frequency of diarrhea, HPM is prior to GPM (P=0.032,P=0.044). There are no statistical significant differences between the two groups in scores evaluation of general symptom, three main symptoms, quality of life (QOL), frequency and severity of abdominal pain, times, and pattern of diarrhea (allP>0.05). There was a statistical significant difference in the improvement of Mayo score between the two groups, and HPM was superior to GPM (P=0.048). Conclusion:HPM and GPM are both promising ways to treat UC, and the total effect is quite similar. HPM is superior to GPM in the improvement of lasting time of abdominal pain and frequency of diarrhea, and also the Mayo score.