4.7 Article

Long-Term Follow-Up of Spinal Stenosis Inpatients Treated with Integrative Korean Medicine Treatment

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10010074

Keywords

integrative Korean medicine treatment; traditional Korean medicine; lumbar spinal stenosis; inpatients; back pain; acupuncture; herbal medicine; pharmacopuncture; Chuna manipulation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Patients with lumbar spinal stenosis who received inpatient integrative Korean medicine treatment showed significant improvements in back pain NRS score, leg pain NRS score, and ODI score at long-term follow-up. This suggests that this treatment approach has a positive impact on reducing pain and functional disability in LSS patients.
The present prospective observational study aimed to analyze the outcomes of inpatients who received integrative Korean medicine treatment in order to provide evidence on its effects on lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Patients with LSS who received inpatient treatment at four Korean medicine hospitals from January 2015 to December 2018 were followed up. Outcomes measured included the numeric rating scale (NRS) scores for back and leg pain, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Changes in outcomes at admission, discharge, and follow-up, as well as associated predictors that could account for the improvement in outcomes were analyzed. The NRS score for back pain, NRS score for leg pain, and ODI decreased by 2.20 points (95% confidence interval (CI), -2.41 to -1.99), 2.28 points (95% CI, -2.59 to -1.96), and 17.31 points (95% CI, -19.6 to -15.02), respectively, at long-term follow-up compared with at admission. Patients with LSS who received inpatient integrative Korean medicine treatment exhibited an improvement in pain and functional disability. Further studies are required to determine the effects of integrative Korean medicine treatment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available