[Comparison of the clinical efficacy on chronic abdominal wall pain between trigger-point electroacupuncture and transversus abdominis plane block].

Q3 Medicine

针刺研究 Pub Date : 2024-10-25 DOI:10.13702/j.1000-0607.20230312

Miao-Miao Shen, Qin-Ge Wang, Li-Xue Liu, Yan Yuan

{"title":"[Comparison of the clinical efficacy on chronic abdominal wall pain between trigger-point electroacupuncture and transversus abdominis plane block].","authors":"Miao-Miao Shen, Qin-Ge Wang, Li-Xue Liu, Yan Yuan","doi":"10.13702/j.1000-0607.20230312","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: To compare the clinical efficacy between trigger-point (TrP) electroacupuncture and transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block in treatment of chronic abdominal wall pain (CAWP).Methods: A total of 62 CAWP patients were randomly divided into a TrP electroacupuncture group (31 cases, 1 case dropped off) and a TAP block group (31 cases, 1 case dropped off). Electroacupuncture at trigger points was delivered in the TrP electroacupuncture group, and TAP block was administered under ultrasonic guidance in the TAP block group. Separately, the score of the numerical pain rating scale (NRS) was observed before treatment and in 1 week, 1 month and 3 months after treatment；the scores of the self-rating anxiety scale (SAS) and the self-rating depressive scale (SDS) observed before treatment and in 1 week and 3 months after treatment；and the score of the short form 36 questionnaire (SF-36) was observed before treatment and in 3 months after treatment. The utilization rate of remedial drugs was recorded during follow-up visit. The clinical efficacy was compared.Results: At each time point after treatment, NRS score decreased in comparison with that before treatment (P<0.05), the scores of SAS and SDS 1 week and 3 months after treatment were reduced (P<0.05) and the each item score of SF-36 increased (P<0.05) 3 months after treatment of each group. Compared with the outcomes in the TAP block group, NRS scores were reduced 1 month and 3 months after treatment respectively (P<0.05), the scores of SAS and SDS decreased (P<0.05) and SF-36 score was elevated (P<0.05) 3 months after treatment in the TrP electroacupuncture group. There was no significant difference in the utilization rate of remedial drugs between the two groups. The clinical efficacy of the TrP electroacupuncture group (96.7%) was superior to that of the TAP block group (83.3%, P<0.05).Conclusions: Both TrP electroacupuncture and TAP block can markedly relieve pain, attenuate the emotional symptoms of anxiety and depression and improve the quality of life in the patients with chronic abdominal wall pain. The clinical efficacy of TrP electroacupuncture is better than that of TAP block 3 months after treatment.","PeriodicalId":34919,"journal":{"name":"针刺研究","volume":"49 10","pages":"1070-1076"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"针刺研究","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13702/j.1000-0607.20230312","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the clinical efficacy between trigger-point (TrP) electroacupuncture and transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block in treatment of chronic abdominal wall pain (CAWP).

Methods: A total of 62 CAWP patients were randomly divided into a TrP electroacupuncture group (31 cases, 1 case dropped off) and a TAP block group (31 cases, 1 case dropped off). Electroacupuncture at trigger points was delivered in the TrP electroacupuncture group, and TAP block was administered under ultrasonic guidance in the TAP block group. Separately, the score of the numerical pain rating scale (NRS) was observed before treatment and in 1 week, 1 month and 3 months after treatment；the scores of the self-rating anxiety scale (SAS) and the self-rating depressive scale (SDS) observed before treatment and in 1 week and 3 months after treatment；and the score of the short form 36 questionnaire (SF-36) was observed before treatment and in 3 months after treatment. The utilization rate of remedial drugs was recorded during follow-up visit. The clinical efficacy was compared.

Results: At each time point after treatment, NRS score decreased in comparison with that before treatment (P<0.05), the scores of SAS and SDS 1 week and 3 months after treatment were reduced (P<0.05) and the each item score of SF-36 increased (P<0.05) 3 months after treatment of each group. Compared with the outcomes in the TAP block group, NRS scores were reduced 1 month and 3 months after treatment respectively (P<0.05), the scores of SAS and SDS decreased (P<0.05) and SF-36 score was elevated (P<0.05) 3 months after treatment in the TrP electroacupuncture group. There was no significant difference in the utilization rate of remedial drugs between the two groups. The clinical efficacy of the TrP electroacupuncture group (96.7%) was superior to that of the TAP block group (83.3%, P<0.05).

Conclusions: Both TrP electroacupuncture and TAP block can markedly relieve pain, attenuate the emotional symptoms of anxiety and depression and improve the quality of life in the patients with chronic abdominal wall pain. The clinical efficacy of TrP electroacupuncture is better than that of TAP block 3 months after treatment.

查看原文本刊更多论文

[扳机点电针与腹横肌平面阻滞对慢性腹壁痛的临床疗效比较]。

目的比较触发点（TrP）电针和腹横肌平面（TAP）阻滞治疗慢性腹壁痛（CAWP）的临床疗效：将62例慢性腹壁痛患者随机分为触发点电针组（31例，1例退出）和腹横肌平面阻滞组（31例，1例退出）。TrP 电针组在触发点进行电针，TAP 阻滞组在超声波引导下进行 TAP 阻滞。分别观察治疗前、治疗后 1 周、1 个月和 3 个月的疼痛评分量表（NRS）得分；治疗前、治疗后 1 周和 3 个月的焦虑自评量表（SAS）和抑郁自评量表（SDS）得分；治疗前和治疗后 3 个月的短表 36 问卷（SF-36）得分。随访时记录治疗药物的使用率。比较临床疗效：结果：治疗后各时间点的 NRS 评分均较治疗前有所下降（PPPPPPP结论：TrP 电针和 NRS 评分均较治疗前有所下降：TrP电针和TAP阻滞均能明显缓解慢性腹壁疼痛患者的疼痛，减轻焦虑、抑郁等情绪症状，提高生活质量。治疗 3 个月后，TrP 电针的临床疗效优于 TAP 阻滞疗法。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

针刺研究 Medicine-Medicine (all)

CiteScore

1.30

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Acupuncture Research was founded in 1976. It is an acupuncture academic journal supervised by the State Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine, co-sponsored by the Institute of Acupuncture of the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences and the Chinese Acupuncture Association. This journal is characterized by "basic experimental research as the main focus, taking into account clinical research and reporting". It is the only journal in my country that focuses on reporting the mechanism of action of acupuncture. The journal has been changed to a monthly journal since 2018, published on the 25th of each month, and printed in full color. The manuscript acceptance rate is about 10%, and provincial and above funded projects account for about 80% of the total published papers, reflecting the latest scientific research results in the acupuncture field and has a high academic level. Main columns: mechanism discussion, clinical research, acupuncture anesthesia, meridians and acupoints, theoretical discussion, ideas and methods, literature research, etc.