The Clinical Study about Qualitative and Quantitative Characteristics of Acupuncture Sensation According to the Type of Pharmacopuncture: Study about BUM Pharmacopuncture, Mountain Ginseng Pharmacopuncture and Sciatica No. 5 Pharmacopuncture

Article information

J Korean Acupunct Moxib Soc. 2013;30(5):25-39
Publication date (electronic) : 2013 December 20
doi : https://doi.org/10.13045/acupunct.2013043
1Department of Acupuncture & Moxibustion Medicine, College of Oriental Medicine, Dongguk University
2Biometric Research Branch, Research Institute and Hospital, National Cancer Center
3Department of Acupuncture & Moxibustion Medicine, Nasaret Oriental Hospital
*Corresponding author : Department of Acupuncture & Moxibustion Medicine, Dongguk University Bundang Oriental Hospital, 268, Buljeong-ro, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do, 463-865, Republic of Korea, Tel : +82-31-710-3751 E-mail : hanijjung@naver.com
Received 2013 October 29; Revised 2013 November 21; Accepted 2013 November 21.

Abstract

Objectives:

This study was designed to find out the differences of the acupuncture sensation by type of pharmacopuncture. And furthermore we try to find out whether normal saline(NS) is able to be constituted as an appropriate control group for the Calculus Bovis · Fel Ursi · Moschus(BUM) pharmacopuncture, mountain ginseng pharmacopuncture and sciatica no. 5 pharmacopuncture.

Methods:

NS and three type of pharmacopunctures were inserted into ST36, and ST37 of the subjects. Before and after the treatment, subjects completed a questionnaire rating the intensity of 13 kinds of acupuncture sensation(acupuncture sensation scale, ASS). We compared the subjective acupuncture sensation between the NS and three type of pharmacopunctures.

Results:

BUM pharmacopuncture showed significantly intense acupuncture sensation comparing other two pharmacopunctures and NS. There was no statistically significant difference among mountain ginseng pharmacopuncture, sciatica no. 5 pharmacopuncture and NS.

Conclusions:

We found that NS may be able to be an placebo pharmacopuncture for mountain ginseng pharmacopuncture and sciatica no. 5 pharmacopuncture. Additional study is needed for placebo pharmacopuncture of BUM pharmacopuncture.

Fig. 1.

Comparison of sum of acupuncture sensation scale items by type of pharmacopuncture

A : panax ginseng pharmacopuncture.

B : BUM pharmacopuncture.

C : sciatica No. 5 pharmacopuncture.

D : normal saline.

*: statistically significant by one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni(p<0.01).

**: statistically significant by one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni(p<0.05).

Fig. 2.

Differences of acupuncture sensation scale by type of pharmacopuncture

A : panax ginseng pharmacopuncture.

B : BUM pharmacopuncture.

C : sciatica No. 5 pharmacopuncture.

D : normal saline.

*: statistically significant by one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni(p<0.01).

**: statistically significant by one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni(p<0.05).

Fig. 3.

Comparison of acupuncture sensation by factor loading of acupuncture sensation scale items

A : panax ginseng pharmacopunctur.

B : BUM pharmacopuncture.

C : sciatica No. 5 pharmacopuncture.

D : normal saline.

*: statistically significant by one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni(p<0.05).

Factor Loadings of Acupuncture Sensation Scale Items

Presence of Acupuncture Sensation by 13 Types of Acupuncture Sensation Scale Items and Type of Pharmacopuncture C(E)

References

1. Korean pharmacopuncture institute science committee, pharmacopuncturology institute. Pharmacopuncturology Second Editionth ed. Seoul: Elsevier Korea; 2011. p. 3–5. p. 9–17. p. 28–9. p. 229–41.
2. Avins AL, Cherkin DC, Sherman KJ, Goldberg H, Pressman A. Should we reconsider the routine use of placebo controls in clinical research? Trials 2012;13(1):44.
3. Park BK, Cho JH, Son CG. Randomized clinical controlled trials with herbal acupuncture (pharmacopuncture) in Korea: a systematic review. J Korean Oriental Med 2009;30(5):115–26.
4. Seo JC, Yoon JS, Park HJ, Lee HJ, Han SW. The clinical study on acupuncture sensation in CC, CF and BV herbal acupuncture: the basic study on placebo herbal acupuncture. Journal of Pharmacopuncture 2004;7(1):63–70.
5. Yoon JS, Seo JC, Lee HS, et al. The clinical study on acupuncture sensation in Hwangryunhaedok-tang herbal acupuncture and Hominis Placenta herbal acupuncture: the basic study on placebo herbal acupuncture(2). The Journal of Korean Acupuncture & Moxibustion Society 2004;21(4):197–206.
6. Kong J, Gollub R, Huang T, et al. Acupuncture de qi, from qualitative history to quantitative measurement. J Altern Complement Med 2007;13(10):1059–70.
7. Jeong SY, Park ZW, Shin JM, Kim JY, Yoon IY. The comparative study of effectiveness between acupuncture and its cotreatment with Calculus Bovis·Fel Ursi·Moschus pharmacopuncture on the treatment of acute low back pain. The Journal of Korean Acupuncture & Moxibustion Society 2011;28(4):105–10.
8. Oh SW, Jeong JJ, Kim SY, et al. Clinical analysis about diagnosis and treatment of 86 hand paresthesia cases using MPS theory and pharmacopuncture therapy. Journal of Pharmacopuncture 2007;10(3):121–6.
9. Yun KJ, Choi YJ, Yeo IH, et al. A case study of postauricular pain of 6 Bell’s palsy patients using Calculus Bovis· Fel Ursi· Moschus pharmacopuncture. The Journal of Korea Chuna Manual Medicine for Spine & Nerves 2012;7(2):139–49.
10. Choi YJ, Kim JH, Yoon KJ, et al. Comparative study of BUM pharmacopuncture and Soyeom pharmacopunture on peripheral facial paralysis with postauricular pain. The Journal of Korean Acupuncture & Moxibustion Society 2012;29(5):31–7.
11. Park BK, Cho CK, Kwon KR, Yoo HS. A case report for stage IIIB squamous cell lung carcinoma patient treated with cultured Wild Ginseng pharmacopuncture therapy. Journal of Pharmacopuncture 2007;10(3):143–7.
12. Kim K, Choi YS, Joo JC, Moon G. A case report for lung cancer patient showing remission treated with cultivated Wild Ginseng pharmacopuncture. Journal of Pharmacopuncture 2011;14(4):33–7.
13. Bang SH, Kwon KR, Yoo HS. Two cases of non- small cell lung cancer treated with intravenous cultivated Wild Ginseng pharmacopuncture. Journal of Pharmacopuncture 2008;11(2):13–9.
14. Ryu YJ, Lee KH, Kwon KR, Lee YH, Sun SH, Lee SJ. Mountain Ginseng pharmacopuncture treatment on three amyotrophic lateral sclerosis patients: Case report. Journal of pharmacopuncture 2010;13(4):119–27.
15. Lee YH, Kim CW, Lee KH. A case report of monitoring PSA level changes in two prostate cancer patients treated with Mountain Ginseng pharmacopuncture and Sweet Bee Venom along with western anticancer therapy. Journal of pharmacopuncture 2011;14(4):81–8.
16. Im CR, Kwon K, Sur YC, Bang SH, Kim SS, Seong S. A case of hepatic and pulmonary metastatic colorectal cancer patient treated by traditional korean therapy and XELOX chemotherapy. J of Kor Traditional Oncology 2012;17(1):17–25.
17. Kim BW, Kwon KR. The effect of cultivated Wild Ginseng extract on preadipocyte proliferation. Journal of Pharmacopuncture 2007;10(3):29–35.
18. Kim YJ, Lee JM, Lee E. Immunomodulatory activity of cultivated wild ginseng pharmacopuncture. Journal of Meridian & Acupoint 2010;27(1):31–47.
19. Park SW, Kim YS, Hwang WD, Kim GC. Effect of mountain cultivated ginseng pharmacopuncture on Heart Rate Variability(HRV), Pulse Wave Velocity(PWV) in middle aged women. The Journal of Korean Acupuncture & Moxibustion Society 2011;28(2):97–105.
20. Korean acupuncture & moxibustion medicine society, textbook compilation committee. The acupuncture and moxibustion medicine Paju: Jipmoondang; 2012. p. 241–2.
21. Lee SM, Kim BW, Kwon KR, Rhim TJ, Kim DH. The effect of Bangpungtongsung-san extracts on adipocyte metabolism. Journal of Pharmacopuncture 2008;11(1):163–76.
22. Hwang BT, Na CS, Hwang UJ. Effects of Moschus, Bovis Calculus, Ursi Fel aqua-acupuncture on liver damage induced by Radix Aconiti. Journal of Pharmacopuncture 1997;1(1):1–21.
23. Lee JE, Kim BW, Kwon KR, Rhim TJ, Kim DH. Effects of Chowiseungcheng-tang extracts on the preadipocytes proliferation in 3T3-L1 cellline, lipolysis of adipocytes in rat, and localized fat accumulation by extraction methods. Journal of Pharmacopuncture 2008;11(1):127–41.
24. Bae JS. The effects of Cervi Pantotrichum Cornu pharmacopuncture manufactured by different extraction methods on the Heart Rate Variability [dissertation] Wanju: Graduate School of Woosuk University; 2010. Korean.
25. Lee JM, Ha JY. Antitumor effects of aqua- acupuncture with Holotrichia on various tumor-occured model. Korean J Oriental Medical Pathology 2000;14(2):132–43.
26. Shin GC, Cho KH, Kim YS, Bai HS, Lee KS. Studies on efficacy and safety of drug-acupuncture with Hwangryunhaedok-tang. KH Univ O Med J 1994;17(1):85–119.
27. Reichenbach S, Blank S, Rutjes AW, et al. Hylan versus hyaluronic acid for osteoarthritis of the knee: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arthritis Rheum 2007;57(8):1410–18.
28. Lamont LA, Tranquilli WJ, Grimm KA. Physiology of pain. Veterinary clinics of North America : Small Animal Practice 2000;30(4):703–28.
29. Hudspith MJ, Siddall PJ, Munglani R. Physiology of pain. In : Hemmings HC, Hopkins PM, eds. Foundations of anesthesia: basic sciences for clinical practice Philadelphia: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2006. p. 267–85.
30. Wang KM, Yao SM, Xian YL, Hou Z. A study on the receptive field of acupoints and the relationship between characteristics of needling sensation and groups of afferent fibres. Scientia Sinica 1985;28(9):963–71.

Article information Continued

Fig. 1.

Comparison of sum of acupuncture sensation scale items by type of pharmacopuncture

A : panax ginseng pharmacopuncture.

B : BUM pharmacopuncture.

C : sciatica No. 5 pharmacopuncture.

D : normal saline.

*: statistically significant by one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni(p<0.01).

**: statistically significant by one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni(p<0.05).

Fig. 2.

Differences of acupuncture sensation scale by type of pharmacopuncture

A : panax ginseng pharmacopuncture.

B : BUM pharmacopuncture.

C : sciatica No. 5 pharmacopuncture.

D : normal saline.

*: statistically significant by one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni(p<0.01).

**: statistically significant by one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni(p<0.05).

Fig. 3.

Comparison of acupuncture sensation by factor loading of acupuncture sensation scale items

A : panax ginseng pharmacopunctur.

B : BUM pharmacopuncture.

C : sciatica No. 5 pharmacopuncture.

D : normal saline.

*: statistically significant by one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni(p<0.05).

Table 1.

Factor Loadings of Acupuncture Sensation Scale Items

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
Soreness 0.9196
Deep pressure 0.9219
Fullness/distention 0.9746
Throbbing 0.9613
Other 0.9546
Heaviness 0.6029
Dull pain 0.9114
Warmth 0.9430
Aching 0.6321
Tingling 0.5662
Sharp pain 0.5447
Eigen value 7.67403 2.48023 1.69547
Variance 7.08128 2.44880 2.31965
Cumulative variance 0.5447 0.7331 0.9115

Table 2.

Presence of Acupuncture Sensation by 13 Types of Acupuncture Sensation Scale Items and Type of Pharmacopuncture C(E)

A B C D p-value
Soreness 12(15.5) 20(15.5) 15(15.5) 15(15.5)
Aching 10(17.3) 23(17.3) 19(17.3) 17(17.3) 0.011*
Deep pressure 11(12.5) 16(12.5) 13(12.5) 10(12.5)
Heaviness 16(15.8) 21(15.8) 16(15.8) 10(15.8)
Fullness/distention 9(12.3) 16(12.3) 14(12.3) 10(12.3)
Tingling 16(20.8) 25(20.8) 21(20.8) 21(20.8)
Numbness 10(9.0) 11(9.0) 7(9.0) 8(9.0)
Sharp pain 11(13.8) 16(13.8) 15(13.8) 13(13.8)
Dull pain 12(15.3) 22(15.3) 15(15.3) 12(15.3) 0.039*
Warmth 6(9.0) 11(9.0) 10(9.0) 9(9.0)
Cold 6(7.8) 8(7.8) 9(7.8) 8(7.8)
Throbbing 10(12.5) 17(12.5) 14(12.5) 9(12.5)
Other 2(2.8) 3(2.8) 2(2.8) 4(2.8)
Factor 1 16(18.8) 24(18.8) 20(18.8) 15(18.8)
Factor 2 17(18.5) 24(18.5) 18(18.5) 15(18.5)
Factor 3 17(22.8) 28(22.8) 23(22.8) 23(22.8) 0.028*

A : panax ginseng pharmacopuncture.

B : BUM pharmacopuncture.

C : sciatica No. 5 pharmacopuncture.

D : normal saline.

*:

analyzed by x2 test(p<0.05. significant). C : Count. E : Expected.