Therapeutic effect of electroacupuncture,massage,and blocking therapy on external humeral epicondylitis

作     者：Xinjian Li Kun Zhou Enming Zhang Zhen xiQi Weiqing Sun Liangfu Xu Jianfeng Xu Youzhi Cai Ronghui Wang 

作者机构：Orthopedic Institute Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology Beijing Sport University Hospital Orthopedic InstituteFujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Department of Internal Medicine Zhaoxian People's Hospital Department of AdministrationSports Bureau of Fujian Province 

出 版 物：《Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine》 (中医杂志（英文版）)

年 卷 期：2014年第34卷第3期

页      面：261-266页

核心收录：

学科分类：1005[医学-中医学] 100508[医学-中医骨伤科学] 10[医学] 

主　　题：Electroacupuncture Massage Blockingtherapy Treatment outcome External humeral epi-condylitis 

摘      要：OBJECTIVE:To compare two therapeutic methods:electroacupuncture + massage + blocking therapy,and blocking therapy alone in the treatment of external humeral ***:Eighty-six patients were randomized into two groups with 43 in each. The treatment group received electroacupuncture + massage +blocking therapy, while the control group received blocking therapy only. A course of electroacupuncture treatment included therapy once a day for 10days. There were 10 treatments in a massage course and massage was given once a day, with a1-week interval given before the next course. A course of blocking treatment included therapy once a week, for twototaltreatments,andgenerallyno more than three times. The therapeutic effects were evaluated with the visual analog scale(VAS),grip strength index(GSI) score, and Mayo elbow performance score(MEPS) before treatment and at0, 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment to observe ***: In the treatment and control groups before treatment and at 0, 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment, the VAS scores were: 6.5±1.9 and 6.4±1.6; 4.6±1.3 and 4.6±1.7; 4.8±1.3 and 4.8±1.2; 4.6±1.2 and 6.6±1.6; and 6.5±1.6 and 6.5±1.3, respectively. The GSI scores were 63±8 and 63±8; 84±6and82±7;82±7and82±6;84±6and62±8;and64±6 and 64±7, *** MEPS of both groups were65±7and66±8;85±6and84±7;84±5and84±7;80±7and66±6;and65±6and65±7,*** total effective rates of the treatment and control groups at 0, 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment were 87.5% and 85.0%; 85.0% and 82.5%;80.0% and 12.5%; and 2.5% and 5.0%, *** with the treatment group, the control group had greater joint function, better the rapeutic effect, and lower pain intensity(P0.05)***: We found that both methods were effective for external hum