Effect of Briefing on Acupuncture Treatment Outcome Expectations, Pain, and Adverse Side Effects Among Patients With Chronic Low Back Pain

Objective There is some evidence for the efficacy of acupuncture in chronic low back pain, but it remains unclear which acupuncture modes are most effective. Our objective was to evaluate the effects of two different modes of trigger point acupuncture on pain and quality of life in chronic low back pain patients compared to standard acupuncture treatment. Methods Thirty five consecutive out-patients (25 women, 10 men; age range: 65–81 years) from the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Meiji University of Oriental Medicine, with non-radiating low back pain for at least six months and normal neurological examination, were randomised to one of three groups over 12 weeks. Each group received two phases of acupuncture treatment with an interval between them. Nine patients dropped out during the course of the study. The standard acupuncture group (n=9) received treatment at traditional acupuncture points for low back pain, while the other acupuncture groups received superficial (n=9) or deep (n=9) treatments on trigger points. Outcome measures were VAS pain intensity and Roland Morris Questionnaire. Results After treatment, the group that received deep needling to trigger points reported less pain intensity and improved quality of life compared to the standard acupuncture group or the group that received superficial needling to trigger points, but the differences were not statistically significant. There was a significant reduction in pain intensity between the treatment and interval in the group that received deep needling to trigger points (P<0.01), but not in the standard acupuncture group or the group that received superficial needling to trigger points. Conclusion These results suggest that deep needling to trigger points may be more effective in the treatment of low back pain in elderly patients than either standard acupuncture therapy, or superficial needling to trigger points.

Download Full-text

Standardized versus Individualized Acupuncture for Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine ◽

10.1155/2013/125937 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 2013 ◽

pp. 1-8 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

Daniel Pach ◽

Xiaoli Yang-Strobel ◽

Rainer Lüdtke ◽

Stephanie Roll ◽

Katja Icke ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Low Back Pain ◽

Back Pain ◽

Chronic Low Back Pain ◽

Acupuncture Treatment ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Area Under The Curve ◽

Medical Doctor ◽

Low Back ◽

Single Center ◽

Randomized Controlled

We aimed to compare the effectiveness of standardized and individualized acupuncture treatment in patients with chronic low back pain. A single-center randomized controlled single-blind trial was performed in a general medical practice in Germany run by a Chinese-born medical doctor trained in western and Chinese medicine. One hundred and fifty outpatients with chronic low back pain were randomly allocated to two groups (78 standardized and 72 individualized acupuncture). Patients received either standardized acupuncture or individualized acupuncture. Treatment encompassed between 10 and 15 treatments based on individual symptoms with two treatments per week. The main outcome measure was the area under the curve (AUC) summarizing eight weeks of daily rated pain severity measured with a visual analogue scale (0 mm = no pain, 100 mm = worst imaginable pain). No significant differences between groups were observed for the AUC (individualized acupuncture mean: 1768.7 (95% CI, 1460.4; 2077.1); standardized acupuncture 1482.9 (1177.2; 1788.7); group difference, 285.8 (−33.9; 605.5)P=0.080). In this single-center trial, individualized acupuncture was not superior to standardized acupuncture for patients suffering from chronic pain. As a next step, a multicenter noninferiority study should be performed to investigate whether standardised acupuncture treatment for chronic low back pain might be applicable in a broader usual care setting. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.govNCT00758017.

Download Full-text