![]() |
![]() |
J Acupunct Res > Volume 38(4); 2021 > Article |
|
First author (y) [reference] |
Study type N (I:C) |
Sample age (y) (I/C) | Sample (M:F) (I/C) | Course of condition/ disease (I/C) | Acupoints (I) | Size (L × D; mm) | Treatment session & total period (I) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Lee (2014) [13] |
RCT 30 (15:15) |
50.80 ± 4.18 / 54.07 ± 4.04 | 6:9 / 7:8 | ≤ 10 D |
- MP+C7 SP: SCM, SC, TE17 - NL - C2 SP+FJ - C1 TP - C1, C3 FJ |
50 × 0.5 |
- Inpatient: 2 Tx/D - Outpatient: 2-3 Tx/W (Total 3 W) |
2. Zhao (2015) [14] |
CS 25 |
17–72 (Mean: 45.2) | 16:9 | 2 H-3 D (Mean 1.5 D) |
- BC of affected side - Meridian of newly paralyzed region |
- | - |
3. Yang (2015) [15] |
CS 23 |
18–64 (39.16 ± 8.25) | 8:15 | 5 D-10 Y (2.49 ± 0.79 Y) | TP of cervical region | - | - |
4. Tang (2016) [16] |
CS 42 |
15–73 | 18:24 | 3.04 ± 0.28 M | ST07, TE17, ST02, EX-HN16, SI18, ST06, EX-HN4, GB14, ST04 (Choose 4-6 points) | 40 × 0.5 (Type 1, No. 4) |
- 1 Tx /5-7 D - 3 Tx /1 session (Min 2 Tx, Max 6 Tx) |
5. Zhang (2016) [17] |
RCT 42 (21:21) |
50.0 ± 5.6 / 52.0 ± 6.0 | 9:12 / 8:13 | ≥ 2 M |
- MP - Lower point of zygomatic arch - Infraorbital foramen - BC |
50 × 0.6 (No. 4) 80 × 1.0 (No. 3) |
- 1 Tx/4 D - 4 Tx/1 session (Next Tx after 5 D) |
6. Zhang (2017) [18] |
CS 25 |
Mean 37.6 | 17:8 | 3 D-6 M (Mean 4.32 M) |
TE17, GB04, ST02, CV24, EX-HN8, ST05, ST07, LI04 (+) LR03, BC against induration (3 points) |
30 × 0.4 | 2nd Tx after 5 D of 1st Tx (Not exceed 3 Tx) |
7. Zhang (2017) [19] |
RCT 52 (26:26) |
45.21 ± 8.10 / 45.55 ± 8.46 | 16:10 / 15:11 | ≥ 1–3 M | ST07, TE17, ST02, EX-HN16, SI18, ST06, EX-HN4, GB14, ST04 (Choose 4–6 points) | 40 × 0.5 (Type 1, No. 4) |
- 1 Tx/5-7 D - 3 Tx /1 session |
8. He (2017) [20] |
RCT 70 (35:35) |
32.26 ± 9.47 / 31.55 ± 9.21 | 19:16 / 18:17 | 15–51 D (29.28 ± 6.34) / 16–54 D (28.77 ± 6.62) | TD, nodule on 3 Yang meridians of hand and foot | 40 × 0.35 | 1 Tx per 3 D (Total 10 Tx for 30 D) |
9. Xu (2018) [21] |
CS 128 |
28–75 (38.1 ± 9.5) | 72:56 | - | - | - | 2nd Tx after 5–7 D of 1st Tx (3–4 Tx) |
10. Hong (2018) [22] |
RCT 60 (30:30) |
25–47 (43.03 ± 5.27) / 28–65 (39.05 ± 6.43) | 20:10 / 16:14 | 2.79 ± 1.30 D / 2.10 ± 0.85 D |
- 2.5 cm outer of midpoint of inferior nuchal line - C2 SP - Midpoint & outer 1/3 point of C2 SP-MP line - C3–C6 SP - 3–4 cm outer of C7 SP - Medial border of subclavicular fossa - BC (1 W after o/s) |
20 × 0.35 |
- Tx at intervals of 3–5 D - 5–9 Tx/1 session (+) BC: (1 Tx/W, 3 Tx/1 session) |
11. Chen (2019) [23] |
RCT 62 (31:31) |
21–68 (44.5 ± 23.5) / 21–67 (44.0 ± 23.0) | 15:16 / 16:15 | - | STP | 50 × 1.0 | Next Tx after 1 W depending on progress |
12. Wang (2020) [24] |
CS 36 |
23–61 (18.45 ± 6.48) | 16:20 | 3 M-25 Y (5.5 ± 2.6 M) |
① Face: EX-HN4, GB14, ST02, BL02, GB01, EX-HN8, CV24, ST04, BC ② Neck: - C1–C7 TP & FJ - C2 SP - TP or induration on FJ, muscle |
Type 1, No. 4 |
- 1 Tx/5–7 D - 3 Tx/1 session |
13. Lu (2020) [25] | RCT 60 (30:30) | 42.86 ± 13.62 / 42.42 ± 13.06 | 9:21 / 8:22 | 5.26 ± 3.18 D / 5.18 ± 3.22 D |
- STP (Ant. & post. margin) - TP (Ant. & post. tubercle)+C2 SP - Facial TP, induration |
50 × 0.8 (No. 4) 50 × 0.6 (No. 4) |
- 1 Tx/3 D - 5 Tx/1 session (Total 15 D) |
I, intervention group; C, control group; RCT, randomized controlled trial; CS, case series; MP, mastoid process; SP, spinous process; SCM, sternocleidomastoid muscle; SC, splenius capitis; NL, nuchal ligament; FJ, facet joint; TP, transverse process; STP, styloid process; TP, tender point; BC, buccal mucosa.
First author (y) | Intervention group | Control group | Evaluation index | Main result (I/C) | Adverse events |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Lee (2014) [13] | NKT+CA+PAtx+HM+WM | CA+PAtx+HM+WM |
1. Y-score 2. VAS |
1. ① I) Significant improvement in all periods (P01, P12, P23, P02, P03) (p < 0.05) C) Significant Improvement in all periods (p < 0.05) except P12 (p = 0.085) ② Comparison of improvement - P01, P23: I > C (p > 0.05), P12, P02, P03: I > C (p < 0.05) 2. ① Significant improvement in all periods (p < 0.05) except P12 (I: p = 0.116, C: p = 0.359) ② Comparison of improvement - P01, P12, P02: I > C (p > 0.05), P23, P03: I > C (p < 0.05) |
Few cases of dizziness and poor condition (Recovered within 3 days) |
2. Zhao (2015) [14] | NKT+WNA+PT+ HM+WM | - |
1. H-B 2. ER |
1. Gr. I: 17 cases, Gr. II: 6 cases, Gr. III: 2 cases, Gr. IV-VI: 0 cases 2. 100% |
No occurrence |
3. Yang (2015) [15] | NKT+CA | 1. ER |
1. ① After 1st Tx: 95.65% ② After 2nd & 3rd Tx: 100% |
Not mentioned | |
4. Tang (2016) [16] | NKT+modified flash cupping method | - |
H-B ER |
1. Gr. I: 27 cases, Gr. II: 11 cases, Gr. III: 2 cases, Gr. IV-VI: 2 cases 2. 95.23% |
No occurrence |
5. Zhang (2016) [17] | NKT | FNA | 1. ER | 1. 100% / 66.7% (p < 0.05) | Not mentioned |
6. Zhang (2017) [18] | NKT | - | 1. ER | 1. 96% | Not mentioned |
7. Zhang (2017) [19] | NKT+HOT+MNGF+WM | MNGF+WM |
1. H-B 2. ER |
1. Gr. I: 0→8 / 0→3, Gr. II: 2→7 / 2→4, Gr. III: 7→7 / 6→3, Gr. IV: 7→2 / 7→5, Gr. V: 6→1 / 5→6, Gr. VI: 4→1 / 6→5 (p < 0.05) 2. 84.6% / 38.5% (p < 0.05) |
No occurrence |
8. He (2017) [20] | NKT+WM | CA+WM |
1. ER 2. SFGS 3. EMG 4. IC |
1. 91.4% / 80.0% (p < 0.05) 2. 44.22 ± 10.45→76.64 ± 10.06 / 46.25 ± 10.32→68.18 ± 12.15 (p < 0.05) 3. ① CMAP pulse width: 0.85 ± 0.43 →1.24 ± 0.46 (p < 0.05) / 0.89 ± 0.47 →1.01 ± 0.35 ② R1 latent period: 12.18 ± 1.98 →8.78 ± 1.85 (p < 0.05) / 12.61 ± 2.63→10.66 ± 2.27 (p < 0.05) 4. 11.43% / 20% (p > 0.05) |
Not mentioned |
9. Xu (2018) [21] | NKT+CA+HM | - | 1. ER | 1. 98.44% | No occurrence |
10. Hong (2018) [22] | NKT+CA (CA: taiji six-he acupuncture) | WM | 1. ER | 1. 96.67% / 83.33% (p < 0.05) | Not mentioned |
11. Chen (2019) [23] | NKT+CA+WM+Chuna | CA+WM+Chuna |
1. ER 2. TCM 3. EMG |
96.77% / 58.06% (p < 0.05) 2. ① Mouth & eye deviation: 0.45 ± 0.23 / 2.17 ± 0.44 ② Facial numbness: 0.51 ± 0.25 / 2.20 ± 0.41 ③ Eyelid insufficiency: 0.42 ± 0.27 / 2.22 ± 0.38 ④ Facial convulsion: 0.52 ± 0.21 / 2.35 ± 0.40 (p < 0.05) 3. ① OO: 59.31 ± 11.56→98.54 ± 9.62 / 58.34 ± 12.94→75.88 ± 8.63 ② FB: 18.39 ± 4.33→48.66 ± 4.93 / 19.27 ± 3.35→34.56 ± 3.87 ③ LLS: 21.35 ± 7.22→82.51 ± 9.78 / 22.18 ± 7.57→55.37 ± 8.61 (p < 0.05) |
Not mentioned |
12. Wang (2020) [24] | NKT+Facial scraping | - |
1. H-B 2. ER |
1. 1.47 ± 0.73 → 4.56 ± 0.83 2. 94.4% |
Not mentioned |
13. Lu (2020) [25] | NKT | WM |
1. FFAS 2. ER |
1. 9.84 ± 4.68→27.16 ± 2.86 / 9.86 ± 4.66→23.68 ± 6.12 (p < 0.05) 2. 86.67% / 73.33% (p < 0.01) |
Not mentioned |
NKT, needle knife treatment; CA, common acupuncture; PAtx, pharmacoacupuncture; PT, physiotherapy; HM, herbal medicine; WM, western medicine; Y-score, Yanagihara score; VAS, visual analogue scale; Pαβ, period from the α th visit to β weeks later; WNA, warm needling acupuncture; H-B, House-Brackmann grade; ER, efficacy rate; Tx, treatment; FNA, fire needling acupuncture; HOT, hyperbaric oxygen therapy; MNGF, mouse nerve growth factor; TCM, TCM syndrome score; EMG, electromyography; SFGS, Sunnybrook facial grading scale; IC, the incidence of complications; OO, orbicularis oris; FB, frontal belly; LLS, Levator labii superioris; FFAS, facial nerve function assessment scale.
Size (mm)* | Frequency |
---|---|
20 × 0.35 | 1 |
40 × 0.35 | 1 |
30 × 0.40 | 1 |
40 × 0.50 | 2 |
50 × 0.50 | 1 |
50 × 0.60 | 2 |
50 × 0.80 | 1 |
50 × 1.00 | 1 |
80 × 1.00 | 1 |
Clinical Study of Acupotomy Treatment for Tarsal Tunnel Syndrome2020 May;37(2)
![]() |
![]() |