Différences
Ci-dessous, les différences entre deux révisions de la page.
| Les deux révisions précédentes Révision précédente Prochaine révision | Révision précédente | ||
|
acupuncture:evaluation:rhumatologie - orthopedie:16. sciatique [25 Oct 2025 11:22] Nguyen Johan [2. Clinical Practice Guidelines] |
acupuncture:evaluation:rhumatologie - orthopedie:16. sciatique [25 Oct 2025 11:26] (Version actuelle) Nguyen Johan [1.2.1.1. Ni 2025] |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| Ligne 101: | Ligne 101: | ||
| | | ||
| + | ==== Special Acupuncture Techniques ==== | ||
| + | |||
| === Comparison of Acupuncture techniques === | === Comparison of Acupuncture techniques === | ||
| == Ni 2025 == | == Ni 2025 == | ||
| Ligne 110: | Ligne 112: | ||
| ^Results| According to SUCRA, in terms of total effective rate, the more effective intervention was electroacupuncture combined with cupping therapy (EA+Cupping, 92.93%); in terms of VAS, the better intervention was needle knife combined with rehabilitation therapy (NK+RT, 95.96%); in terms of ODI, the more effective intervention was electroacupuncture combined with cupping therapy (EA+Cupping, 98.03%); in terms of JOA, the best intervention was electrostimulation combined with rehabilitation therapy (ES+RT, 88.27%); in terms of IL-6 and TNF-α, the better intervention was electroacupuncture combined with electrostimulation (EA+ES, 99.99%).| | ^Results| According to SUCRA, in terms of total effective rate, the more effective intervention was electroacupuncture combined with cupping therapy (EA+Cupping, 92.93%); in terms of VAS, the better intervention was needle knife combined with rehabilitation therapy (NK+RT, 95.96%); in terms of ODI, the more effective intervention was electroacupuncture combined with cupping therapy (EA+Cupping, 98.03%); in terms of JOA, the best intervention was electrostimulation combined with rehabilitation therapy (ES+RT, 88.27%); in terms of IL-6 and TNF-α, the better intervention was electroacupuncture combined with electrostimulation (EA+ES, 99.99%).| | ||
| ^Conclusion| Acupuncture combined with other therapies demonstrates superior efficacy compared to rehabilitation treatment. Specifically, NK+RT is possibly a more effective intervention for pain relief; EA+Cupping shows a better benefit in improving disability and quality of life; ES+RT is likely a more effective strategy for promoting neurological recovery; and EA+ES is possibly better in reducing inflammatory responses.| | ^Conclusion| Acupuncture combined with other therapies demonstrates superior efficacy compared to rehabilitation treatment. Specifically, NK+RT is possibly a more effective intervention for pain relief; EA+Cupping shows a better benefit in improving disability and quality of life; ES+RT is likely a more effective strategy for promoting neurological recovery; and EA+ES is possibly better in reducing inflammatory responses.| | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | === Acupotomy === | ||
| + | Lee 2025 | ||
| + | Lee S-H, Lee J-H, Choi H-K, Lee M-S, Choi S, Park S, Kim H-J, Kim YI, Kim YI, Lim YS, Park T-Y. Effectiveness of acupotomy combined with epidural steroid injection for lumbar radiculopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Integr Med. 2025;77:102504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eujim.2025.102504 | ||
| + | . | ||
| + | |||
| + | ^Background| Acupotomy—a combination of acupuncture and minimally invasive surgery—is a commonly used traditional East Asian medical intervention for treating patients with lumbar radiculopathy (LR). This study aimed to evaluate whether a combination of acupotomy and epidural steroid injections (ESIs) was more effective than ESIs alone or ESIs with interventions other than acupotomy for LR patients.| | ||
| + | ^Methods| Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using acupotomy and ESIs in patients with LR were retrieved from thirteen databases on June 10, 2024 (PROSPERO CRD42023435441). Included studies assessed outcomes using the pain Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), total effective rate (TER), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), and adverse events (AEs). Cochrane’s Risk of Bias Tool 2 (RoB2) was employed to assess the risk of bias, and the GRADE tool was used to assess evidence quality.| | ||
| + | ^Results| **Five studies involving 577 patients** were included. Compared with ESIs alone, the combination of acupotomy and ESIs led to improvement in pain VAS scores (three RCTs, standard mean difference [SMD] −0.73 [−1.01 to −0.45], very low certainty of evidence [CoE]) and TER (four RCTs, risk ratio 1.31 [1.02 to 1.69], very low CoE), although most studies were at high risk of bias in the RoB2 evaluation. However, the combination showed no improvement in ODI (two RCTs, SMD 0.46 [−1.58 to 2.50], very low CoE). No major AEs were reported.| | ||
| + | ^Conclusion| Although the quality of evidence was very low, combined acupotomy and ESIs proved more effective than ESIs alone for LR patients. Further rigorously designed studies are warranted to confirm the effects of this combination therapy.| | ||
| ===== Overviews of systematic reviews ===== | ===== Overviews of systematic reviews ===== | ||
