Collateral Meridian Acupressure Therapy Effectively Relieves Postregional Anesthesia/Analgesia Backache:

Comparing complementary alternative treatment for chronic shoulder pain of myofascial origin: Collateral meridian therapy versus local tender area-related meridians therapy

The aim of this study was to compare the short-term outcomes between 2 different treatments for unilateral chronic shoulder pain of myofascial origin, that is, local tender area related meridians (LTARMs) treatment and collateral meridian therapy (CMT), which were performed 6 times over a period of 4 weeks.Seventy patients with unilateral shoulder pain of chronic myofascial origin were enrolled. The patients were randomly assigned to 2 different treatment groups: 1 group received CMT (n = 35) and the other received LTARM (n = 35). Before and after the 2 treatment processes, all patients rated their overall pain intensity on a visual analogue scale (VAS) and a validated 13-question shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI) questionnaire was used to measure shoulder pain and functional impairment after therapy for 4 weeks.After CMT, the pain intensity was reduced after CMT. VAS score is reduced from 5.90 ± 2.07 (a mean of 5.90 and standard deviation of 2.07) to 3.39 ± 1.2. This was verified by the SPADI pain subscale scores (from 0.58 ± 0.193 to 0.33 ± 0.14). The pain-relief effect of CMT was significantly better than that of LTARM (VAS score from 5.78 ± 1.64 to 4.58 ± 1.40; P < 0.005; SPADI pain subscale score from 0.58 ± 0.16 to 0.45 ± 0.14, P < 0.001). In addition, the VAS scores of patients changed considerably in the CMT group after 4 weeks of treatment, where 63% of patients felt no or mild pain, whereas the VAS scores for moderate pain were even higher in the LTARM group in 75% of patients (P < 0.001). Moreover, the SPADI disability subscale scores improved significantly in the CMT group because of their greater mobility associated with shoulder impairment (disability score: from 0.58 ± 0.20 to 0.35 ± 0.14) than those in the LTARM group (disability score: from 0.55 ± 0.17 to 0.44 ± 0.14, P < 0.001).CMT may be more effective in reducing chronic shoulder pain of myofascial origin than the LTARM treatment, where treatment with the former resulted in better functional recovery after 4 weeks than the latter.

The effects of collateral meridian therapy for knee osteoarthritis pain management: a pilot study

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this preliminary study was to examine whether collateral meridian (CM) therapy was feasible in treating knee osteoarthritis (OA) pain.

METHODS

Twenty-eight patients with knee OA and knee pain were randomly allocated to 2 groups. The CM group patients received CM therapy, whereas the control patients received placebo treatment for knee pain relief. Patients in the CM group received 2 CM treatments weekly for 3 weeks. The outcome measures were pain intensity on a visual analog scale, and knee function was determined using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index.

RESULTS

In the CM group, the posttreatment visual analog scale and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores were lower than those of the control group; a significant reduction in pain intensity (P = .02, P = .01, respectively) and improvement in knee function (P = .04, P = .03, respectively) were shown in the CM group at the second and third week.

CONCLUSION

Collateral meridian therapy may be feasible and effective for knee OA pain relief and knee function recovery. Therefore, additional randomized control trials are warranted.