Effects of Ai Chi and Yamamoto new scalp acupuncture on chronic low back pain

Abstract

Introduction : Low Back pain affects a large part of the population and represents a major socioeconomic problem. There are many resources for treatment of this symptom, among them: acupuncture and aquatic therapy. Objective : To compare the effects of an aquatic physical therapy program (AI CHI) and Yamamoto New Scalp Acupuncture (YNSA) in pain intensity and functionality in patients with chronic low back pain. Material and methods : a clinical trial with a randomized sample. Sixty six individuals with chronic low back pain, of both genders were selected, however 44 individuals completed the study. The individuals were divided into three groups AI CHI (n = 15), YNSA (n = 15) and Control (n = 14). Ten 10 interventions with a program of aquatic therapy method (Ai Chi) and Yamamoto New Scalp Acupuncture (YNSA), were made, twice a week. The control group received the intervention only after the end of the study. Pain intensity was assessed by a visual analogue scale (VAS) and the functional capacity by Owestry functionality Index. Results : There was significant reduction in pain and improvement in functional capacity (p < 0.05) in YNSA and AI CHI and when compared to the control group. Conclusion : It was concluded that the YNSA and AI CHI were effective in reducing pain and improving the functionality of the lumbar spine in patients with chronic low back pain.

The Japanese Scalp Acupuncture as an Instrument for Non- Specific Pain Treatment in Health Professionals / A Craniopuntura Japonesa como Instrumento para o Tratamento da Dor não Específica em Profissionais de Saúde

“…19 As a form of treatment for chronic low back pain, the techniques of Ai Chi aquatic and Japanese scalp acupuncture were used, the techniques were compared with each other and with a control group, it was verified that in ten visits to a program of aquatic physiotherapy with a frequency of pain reported by the participants was significantly reduced in relation to the control group and there was improvement in the functionality of the participants' lumbar spine. 20 Compared with acupuncture, the YNSA was equally effective in reducing the intense symptoms of a migraine in a study with 80 subjects, in which it was statistically possible to observe this alteration. 21 This overall pain reduction is in line with another study where 100% of participants also reported improvement in pain after needle application.…”

Yamamoto new scalp acupuncture: its applications and results in painful conditions. Systematic review

“…The second study involving back pain also showed to be effective regarding the reduction of pain in relation to the control group. However, the use of Ai Chi was as good as the YNSA 9 . Accrediting the reduction of pain to the use of the YNSA is probably due to the activation of the A-delta and C afferent fibers that generate information in the spinal cord and leads to the production of dynorphin and enkephalin.…”

“…Accrediting the reduction of pain to the use of the YNSA is probably due to the activation of the A-delta and C afferent fibers that generate information in the spinal cord and leads to the production of dynorphin and enkephalin. These afferent stimulations travel to the CNS releasing neurotransmitters such as serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine that when reaching the hypothalamus and the pituitary gland, release endorphins and acetylcholine, reducing pain through the descending suppressor system 9,10 .…”

“…However, this study did not make it clear if the needles had been inserted unilaterally or bilaterally in the selected points. On the other hand, Hasegawa et al 4 applied them bilaterally and Camilotti et al 9 unilaterally. Moreover, this makes it difficult to determine any influence in the effect due to the divergence between the authors regarding the side of the application.…”

Water-Based Exercise in Patients With Nonspecific Chronic Low-Back Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

“…The initial search found 521 studies. Only 21 publications (1,(4)(5)(6)(7)11,15,(25)(26)(27)30,40,44,46,50,59,67,75,82,100,101) complied with the research protocol, of which 15 (1,(4)(5)(6)(7)11,15,26,27,30,44,50,59,82,100) were included in the meta-analyses (Figure 1). There were 7 studies that, despite analyzing variables of pain, disability, quality of life or flexibility, were not included in the quantitative analysis because (a) they used questionnaires or different measurement scales that did not provide sufficient data to calculate the ES (at least 3 studies) or (b) scored low in the methodological quality assessment.…”