Study on the efficacy of automatic-controlled pressure cupping for lumbar disc herniation.
10.12200/j.issn.1003-0034.20250599
- Author:
Bo-Chen PENG
1
;
Min-Shan FENG
1
;
Li LI
2
;
Gui-Ju REN
3
;
Yi-Zhen YUAN
4
;
Li-Jie CHANG
5
;
Shu-Ying REN
5
;
Liu ZENG
5
;
Guang-Wei LIU
1
;
Li-Guo ZHU
1
;
Na YUAN
1
Author Information
1. Wangjing Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100102, China; Beijing Key Laboratory of Digitalized and Intelligent TCM for Prevention and Treatment of Bone and Joint Degenerative Diseases, Beijing 100102, China.
2. Guang'anmen Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medicine Sciences, Beijing 100102, China.
3. Xiyuan Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100102, China.
4. The Ophthalmological Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100102, China.
5. Wangjing Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100102, China.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Cupping;
Intracapsular negative pressure;
Lumbar disc herniation;
Safety
- MeSH:
Humans;
Female;
Male;
Intervertebral Disc Displacement/physiopathology*;
Middle Aged;
Adult;
Lumbar Vertebrae/physiopathology*;
Cupping Therapy/methods*;
Pressure;
Aged;
Treatment Outcome
- From:
China Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology
2025;38(11):1133-1138
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE:To observe the clinical efficacy and safety of automatic pressure-controlled pressure cupping in patients with lumbar disc herniation, and compare it with traditional cupping.
METHODS:A total of 100 patients diagnosed with lumbar disc herniation from January 2022 to August 2024 were selected and divided into two groups:the automatic pressure-controlled pressure cupping group (controlled pressure cupping group) and the traditional cupping group (control group), 50 cases in each group. In the controlled pressure cupping group, there were 18 males and 32 females, with an age of (51.98±12.69) years;in the control group, there were 16 males and 34 females, with an age of (51.32±12.05) years. The visual analogue scale(VAS), comfort score, and lumbar range of motion were observed before treatment and after the 1st, 3rd, and 7th treatments to evaluate the efficacy and safety.
RESULTS:All patients completed the treatment intervention, with complete follow-up data collected. No adverse reactions or complications occurred during treatment and follow-up. After the 3rd treatment, the VAS score of the controlled pressure cupping group was (2.38±0.49), which was lower than that of the control group (2.94±0.68), with a statistically significant difference (P<0.001). In the controlled pressure cupping group, the VAS scores after the 1st, 3rd, and 7th treatments were significantly better than those before treatment (P=0.026);in the control group, the VAS scores after the 3rd and 7th treatments were better than those before treatment, but the difference was not statistically significant(P=0.182). Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) on VAS scores at different time points in both groups showed that there were statistically significant differences in inter-group, time, and interaction effects (P<0.05). After the 1st treatment, in the controlled pressure cupping group, 0 patients felt comfortable, 42 patients (84%) felt mild discomfort, and 8 patients (16%) felt moderate discomfort;in the control group, 0 patients felt comfortable, 28 patients (56%) felt mild discomfort, and 22 patients(44%) felt moderate discomfort;the difference between the two groups was statistically significant(P=0.005). After the 3rd treatment, in the controlled pressure cupping group, 30 patients(60%) felt comfortable, 20 patients (40%) felt mild discomfort, and 0 patients felt moderate discomfort; in the control group, 9 patients (18%) felt comfortable, 41 patients (82%) felt mild discomfort, and 0 patients felt moderate discomfort;the difference between the two groups was statistically significant(P<0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in comfort between the two groups after the 7th treatment(P>0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in lumbar range of motion between the two groups before and after treatment(P>0.05);compared with before treatment, the lumbar range of motion of both groups after treatment was significantly improved, with statistically significant differences (P<0.001).
CONCLUSION:Automatic pressure-controlled pressure cupping can effectively relieve symptoms in patients with lumbar disc herniation, with excellent safety.
