Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine ›› 2025, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (3): 660-666.DOI: 10.19852/j.cnki.jtcm.2025.03.018
Previous Articles Next Articles
Clinical observation on the effect of warming meridian medicinal wine, polarized light external application combined with acupuncture and moxibustion on pain after vertebroplasty
WEN Zhigang1, LU Shuai2, CHENG Xiumei3(
)
- 1 Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Hebei Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shijiazhuang 050000, China
2 First Department of Gynecology, Shijiazhuang Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shijiazhuang 050000, China
3 Hebei University of Chinese Medicine, Shijiazhuang 050000, China
-
Received:2024-02-28Accepted:2024-09-23Online:2025-06-15Published:2025-05-21 -
Contact:CHENG Xiumei, Hebei University of Chinese Medicine, No.3 Xingyuan Road, Shijiazhuang 050000, China. chengxiumei@hebcm.edu.cn,Telephone: +86-311-69095233
Cite this article
WEN Zhigang, LU Shuai, CHENG Xiumei. Clinical observation on the effect of warming meridian medicinal wine, polarized light external application combined with acupuncture and moxibustion on pain after vertebroplasty[J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2025, 45(3): 660-666.
share this article
Table 1 Comparison of clinical efficacy among the four patient groups
| Group | n | Significant effect (n) | Effective (n) | Ineffective (n) | Total effective rate [n (%)] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 30 | 7 | 15 | 8 | 22 (73.33) |
| Treatment group I | 30 | 7 | 16 | 7 | 23 (76.67) |
| Treatment group II | 30 | 11 | 14 | 5 | 25 (83.33) |
| Treatment group III | 30 | 20 | 10 | 0 | 30 (100.00) |
| χ2 value | 22.093 | ||||
| P value | 0.001 |
Table 1 Comparison of clinical efficacy among the four patient groups
| Group | n | Significant effect (n) | Effective (n) | Ineffective (n) | Total effective rate [n (%)] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 30 | 7 | 15 | 8 | 22 (73.33) |
| Treatment group I | 30 | 7 | 16 | 7 | 23 (76.67) |
| Treatment group II | 30 | 11 | 14 | 5 | 25 (83.33) |
| Treatment group III | 30 | 20 | 10 | 0 | 30 (100.00) |
| χ2 value | 22.093 | ||||
| P value | 0.001 |
Table 2 Comparison of pain thresholds at different time points among the four groups ($\bar{x}±s$)
| Group | n | Before treatment | 24 h after treatment | 72 h after treatment | Variance ratio | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 30 | 9.63±3.41 | 5.46±1.26 | 2.12±0.43 | 14.872 | 0.001 |
| Treatment group I | 30 | 9.28±2.90 | 7.98±2.75 | 6.98±2.65 | 18.631 | 0.001 |
| Treatment group II | 30 | 9.34±2.13 | 4.25±0.78 | 1.54±0.23 | 19.056 | 0.001 |
| Treatment group III | 30 | 9.76±1.48 | 3.62±0.57 | 1.08±0.14 | 12.764 | 0.001 |
| t value | 0.843 | 17.775 | 11.032 | - | - | |
| P value | 0.551 | 0.001 | 0.001 | - | - |
Table 2 Comparison of pain thresholds at different time points among the four groups ($\bar{x}±s$)
| Group | n | Before treatment | 24 h after treatment | 72 h after treatment | Variance ratio | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 30 | 9.63±3.41 | 5.46±1.26 | 2.12±0.43 | 14.872 | 0.001 |
| Treatment group I | 30 | 9.28±2.90 | 7.98±2.75 | 6.98±2.65 | 18.631 | 0.001 |
| Treatment group II | 30 | 9.34±2.13 | 4.25±0.78 | 1.54±0.23 | 19.056 | 0.001 |
| Treatment group III | 30 | 9.76±1.48 | 3.62±0.57 | 1.08±0.14 | 12.764 | 0.001 |
| t value | 0.843 | 17.775 | 11.032 | - | - | |
| P value | 0.551 | 0.001 | 0.001 | - | - |
Table 3 Comparison of temperature pain threshold among the four groups ($\bar{x}±s$)
| Group | n | Before treatment | 24 h after treatment | 72 h after treatment | Variance ratio | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 30 | 8.24±0.65 | 4.31±0.39 | 3.58±0.65 | 13.423 | 0.001 |
| Treatment group I | 30 | 8.01±0.67 | 7.14±0.09 | 3.41±0.64 | 18.426 | 0.005 |
| Treatment group II | 30 | 8.14±0.82 | 3.43±0.45 | 3.17±0.16 | 10.884 | 0.001 |
| Treatment group III | 30 | 8.09±0.36 | 3.14±0.36 | 2.21±0.32 | 9.445 | 0.001 |
| t value | 0.783 | 17.984 | 19.741 | - | - | |
| P value | 0.652 | 0.008 | 0.001 | - | - |
Table 3 Comparison of temperature pain threshold among the four groups ($\bar{x}±s$)
| Group | n | Before treatment | 24 h after treatment | 72 h after treatment | Variance ratio | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 30 | 8.24±0.65 | 4.31±0.39 | 3.58±0.65 | 13.423 | 0.001 |
| Treatment group I | 30 | 8.01±0.67 | 7.14±0.09 | 3.41±0.64 | 18.426 | 0.005 |
| Treatment group II | 30 | 8.14±0.82 | 3.43±0.45 | 3.17±0.16 | 10.884 | 0.001 |
| Treatment group III | 30 | 8.09±0.36 | 3.14±0.36 | 2.21±0.32 | 9.445 | 0.001 |
| t value | 0.783 | 17.984 | 19.741 | - | - | |
| P value | 0.652 | 0.008 | 0.001 | - | - |
Table 4 Comparison of electric pain threshold among the four groups ($\bar{x}±s$)
| Group | n | Before treatment | 24 h after treatment | 72 h after treatment | Variance ratio | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 30 | 7.86±1.12 | 7.13±0.65 | 5.57±0.31 | 15.464 | 0.001 |
| Treatment group I | 30 | 7.90±0.35 | 6.09±0.30 | 4.58±4.10 | 15.698 | 0.001 |
| Treatment group II | 30 | 7.87±2.31 | 4.46±0.19 | 3.19±0.26 | 10.832 | 0.001 |
| Treatment group III | 30 | 7.81±1.09 | 3.69±0.27 | 2.01±0.32 | 19.989 | 0.001 |
| t value | 0.556 | 15.461 | 14.454 | - | - | |
| P value | 0.474 | 0.001 | 0.001 | - | - |
Table 4 Comparison of electric pain threshold among the four groups ($\bar{x}±s$)
| Group | n | Before treatment | 24 h after treatment | 72 h after treatment | Variance ratio | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 30 | 7.86±1.12 | 7.13±0.65 | 5.57±0.31 | 15.464 | 0.001 |
| Treatment group I | 30 | 7.90±0.35 | 6.09±0.30 | 4.58±4.10 | 15.698 | 0.001 |
| Treatment group II | 30 | 7.87±2.31 | 4.46±0.19 | 3.19±0.26 | 10.832 | 0.001 |
| Treatment group III | 30 | 7.81±1.09 | 3.69±0.27 | 2.01±0.32 | 19.989 | 0.001 |
| t value | 0.556 | 15.461 | 14.454 | - | - | |
| P value | 0.474 | 0.001 | 0.001 | - | - |
Table 5 Comparison of quality of life among four groups of patients ($\bar{x}±s$)
| Group | n | Body self-consciousness | Psychological self-awareness | Social self-awareness | Health self-consciousness |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | 3 months after treatment | Before treatment | 3 months after treatment | ||
| Control | 30 | 21.0±3.3 | 22.0±3.9 | 28.2±3.9 | 30.2±3.1 |
| Treatment group I | 30 | 21.3±3.0 | 26.0±4.3 | 27.6±4.3 | 31.5±3.4 |
| Treatment group Ⅱ | 30 | 21.2±1.3 | 28.5±3.4 | 29.8±2.0 | 34.8±1.5 |
| Treatment group Ⅲ | 30 | 21.3±2.5 | 31.1±2.0 | 28.8±1.0 | 38.4±0.9 |
| t value | 0.581 | 16.667 | 0.679 | 18.923 | |
| P value | 0.343 | 0.001 | 0.346 | 0.001 |
Table 5 Comparison of quality of life among four groups of patients ($\bar{x}±s$)
| Group | n | Body self-consciousness | Psychological self-awareness | Social self-awareness | Health self-consciousness |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | 3 months after treatment | Before treatment | 3 months after treatment | ||
| Control | 30 | 21.0±3.3 | 22.0±3.9 | 28.2±3.9 | 30.2±3.1 |
| Treatment group I | 30 | 21.3±3.0 | 26.0±4.3 | 27.6±4.3 | 31.5±3.4 |
| Treatment group Ⅱ | 30 | 21.2±1.3 | 28.5±3.4 | 29.8±2.0 | 34.8±1.5 |
| Treatment group Ⅲ | 30 | 21.3±2.5 | 31.1±2.0 | 28.8±1.0 | 38.4±0.9 |
| t value | 0.581 | 16.667 | 0.679 | 18.923 | |
| P value | 0.343 | 0.001 | 0.346 | 0.001 |
Table 6 Comparison of pittsburgh sleep quality index among four groups of patients ($\bar{x}±s$)
| Group | n | Before treatment | 3 months after treatment | Variance ratio | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 30 | 7.97±0.45 | 7.18±0.35 | 10.423 | 0.001 |
| Treatment group I | 30 | 7.34±0.11 | 5.61±0.27 | 12.879 | 0.001 |
| Treatment group Ⅱ | 30 | 7.12±0.36 | 3.65±0.48 | 8.945 | 0.001 |
| Treatment group Ⅲ | 30 | 7.36±0.72 | 1.77±0.39 | 9.664 | 0.001 |
| t value | 0.664 | 19.051 | - | - | |
| P value | 0.594 | 0.001 | - | - |
Table 6 Comparison of pittsburgh sleep quality index among four groups of patients ($\bar{x}±s$)
| Group | n | Before treatment | 3 months after treatment | Variance ratio | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 30 | 7.97±0.45 | 7.18±0.35 | 10.423 | 0.001 |
| Treatment group I | 30 | 7.34±0.11 | 5.61±0.27 | 12.879 | 0.001 |
| Treatment group Ⅱ | 30 | 7.12±0.36 | 3.65±0.48 | 8.945 | 0.001 |
| Treatment group Ⅲ | 30 | 7.36±0.72 | 1.77±0.39 | 9.664 | 0.001 |
| t value | 0.664 | 19.051 | - | - | |
| P value | 0.594 | 0.001 | - | - |
Table 7 Comparison of VAS scores among four groups of patients ($\bar{x}±s$)
| Group | Control group (n = 30) | Treatment group I (n = 30) | Treatment group Ⅱ (n = 30) | Treatment group Ⅲ (n = 30) | t value | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | 8.09±1.31 | 8.25±1.49 | 8.01±1.38 | 8.18±1.26 | 0.986 | 0.592 |
| 1 week after treatment | 7.48±1.25 | 7.32±1.17 | 7.08±1.02 | 6.95±1.17 | 0.794 | 0.352 |
| 2 weeks after treatment | 7.24±1.09 | 7.16±1.03 | 7.02±0.93 | 6.42±1.05 | 7.532 | 0.014 |
| 3 weeks after treatment | 7.03±0.59 | 6.52±1.05 | 6.31±0.83 | 6.11±0.85 | 8.439 | 0.001 |
| 4 weeks after treatment | 6.32±0.53 | 5.12±0.93 | 4.39±1.02 | 2.19±0.61 | 14.523 | 0.001 |
| Variance ratio | 11.328 | 12.693 | 16.149 | 14.129 | - | - |
| P value | 0.001 | 0.015 | 0.001 | 0.001 | - | - |
Table 7 Comparison of VAS scores among four groups of patients ($\bar{x}±s$)
| Group | Control group (n = 30) | Treatment group I (n = 30) | Treatment group Ⅱ (n = 30) | Treatment group Ⅲ (n = 30) | t value | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | 8.09±1.31 | 8.25±1.49 | 8.01±1.38 | 8.18±1.26 | 0.986 | 0.592 |
| 1 week after treatment | 7.48±1.25 | 7.32±1.17 | 7.08±1.02 | 6.95±1.17 | 0.794 | 0.352 |
| 2 weeks after treatment | 7.24±1.09 | 7.16±1.03 | 7.02±0.93 | 6.42±1.05 | 7.532 | 0.014 |
| 3 weeks after treatment | 7.03±0.59 | 6.52±1.05 | 6.31±0.83 | 6.11±0.85 | 8.439 | 0.001 |
| 4 weeks after treatment | 6.32±0.53 | 5.12±0.93 | 4.39±1.02 | 2.19±0.61 | 14.523 | 0.001 |
| Variance ratio | 11.328 | 12.693 | 16.149 | 14.129 | - | - |
| P value | 0.001 | 0.015 | 0.001 | 0.001 | - | - |
Table 8 Comparison of Lumbar Dysfunction Index (ODI) scores among four groups of patients ($\bar{x}±s$)
| Group | Control (n = 30) | Treatment Group Ⅰ (n = 30) | Treatment Group Ⅱ (n = 30) | Treatment Group Ⅲ (n = 30) | t value | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | 44.5±2.7 | 43.3±2.1 | 45.1±3.4 | 45.9±3.0 | 0.942 | 0.547 |
| 1 week after treatment | 40.5±2.1 | 40.7±3.2 | 39.9±3.1 | 39.5±2.6 | 0.763 | 0.339 |
| 2 weeks after treatment | 35.2±3.2 | 34.3±1.3 | 32.4±4.7 | 28.4±10.5 | 8.045 | 0.009 |
| 3 weeks after treatment | 32.5±2.5 | 30.0±2.1 | 27.7±3.1 | 21.1±1.3 | 10.645 | 0.001 |
| 4 weeks after treatment | 29.1±3.6 | 25.2±3.6 | 21.7±2.1 | 13.2±1.7 | 16.368 | 0.001 |
| Variance ratio | 10.663 | 14.534 | 15.097 | 13.656 | - | - |
| P value | 0.001 | 0.013 | 0.001 | 0.001 | - | - |
Table 8 Comparison of Lumbar Dysfunction Index (ODI) scores among four groups of patients ($\bar{x}±s$)
| Group | Control (n = 30) | Treatment Group Ⅰ (n = 30) | Treatment Group Ⅱ (n = 30) | Treatment Group Ⅲ (n = 30) | t value | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before treatment | 44.5±2.7 | 43.3±2.1 | 45.1±3.4 | 45.9±3.0 | 0.942 | 0.547 |
| 1 week after treatment | 40.5±2.1 | 40.7±3.2 | 39.9±3.1 | 39.5±2.6 | 0.763 | 0.339 |
| 2 weeks after treatment | 35.2±3.2 | 34.3±1.3 | 32.4±4.7 | 28.4±10.5 | 8.045 | 0.009 |
| 3 weeks after treatment | 32.5±2.5 | 30.0±2.1 | 27.7±3.1 | 21.1±1.3 | 10.645 | 0.001 |
| 4 weeks after treatment | 29.1±3.6 | 25.2±3.6 | 21.7±2.1 | 13.2±1.7 | 16.368 | 0.001 |
| Variance ratio | 10.663 | 14.534 | 15.097 | 13.656 | - | - |
| P value | 0.001 | 0.013 | 0.001 | 0.001 | - | - |
| 1. | Patel A, Petrone B, Carter KR. Percutaneous vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty. StatPearls: StatPearls Publishing, 2024: 35-9. |
| 2. | Kendler DL, Bauer DC, Davison KS, et al. Vertebral fractures: clinical importance and management. Am J Med 2016; 129: 221. e1-10. |
| 3. |
Luthman S, Widén J. Appropriateness criteria for treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Osteoporos Int 2018; 29: 793-804.
DOI PMID |
| 4. |
Tsoumakidou G, Too CW, Koch G, et al. CIRSE guidelines on percutaneous vertebral augmentation. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2017; 40: 331-42.
DOI PMID |
| 5. |
Wang W, Duan K, Ma M, et al. Can an unipedicular approach replace bipedicular percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture? J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 2019; 32: 261-7.
DOI PMID |
| 6. | Wang YF, Shen J, Li SY, et al. Kambin triangle approach in percutaneous vertebroplasty for the treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Medicine (Baltimore) 2019; 98: e17857. |
| 7. |
Leemans L, Elma Ö, Nijs J, et al. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and heat to reduce pain in a chronic low back pain population: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Braz J Phys Ther 2021; 25: 86-96.
DOI PMID |
| 8. | van der Lely S, Liechti MD. Quantitative electrical pain threshold assessment in the lower urinary tract. Neurourol Urodyn 2020; 39: 420-31. |
| 9. |
Liu D, Kahathuduwa C. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI): psychometric and clinical risk score applications among college students. Psychol Assess 2021; 33: 816-26.
DOI PMID |
| 10. |
Kraxenberger M, Schröder C, Geith T, et al. Fracture generation in human vertebrae under compression loading: the influence of pedicle preservation and bone mineral density on in vitro fracture behavior. Technol Health Care 2018; 26: 155-63.
DOI PMID |
| 11. | Belkoff SM, Mathis JM, Jasper LE, et al. The biomechanics of vertebroplasty: the effect of cement volume on mechanical behavior. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001; 26: 1537-41. |
| 12. | N MA, Eladl HM. Polarized light therapy in the treatment of wounds: a review. Int J Low Extrem Wounds 2022: 15347346221113991. |
| 13. | Taha MM, El-Nagar MM, Elrefaey BH, et al. Effect of polarized light therapy (Bioptron) on wound healing and microbiota in diabetic foot ulcer: a randomized controlled trial. Photobiomodul Photomed Laser Surg 2022; 40: 792-9. |
| 14. |
Lu Q, Liu C, Wang D, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of calcium phosphate-based nanocomposite versus polymethylmethacrylate cement for percutaneous kyphoplasty. Spine J 2019; 19: 1871-84.
DOI PMID |
| 15. | Feehan J, Tripodi N, Fraser S, et al. Polarized light therapy: shining a light on the mechanism underlying its immunomodulatory effects. J Biophotonics 2020; 13: e201960177. |
| 16. |
Tang J, Guo WC, Hu JF, et al. Unilateral and bilateral percutaneous kyphoplasty for thoracolumbar osteoporotic compression fractures. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2019; 29: 946-50.
DOI PMID |
| 17. | Yang S, Chen C, Wang H, et al. A systematic review of unilateral versus bilateral percutaneous vertebroplasty/percutaneous kypho-plasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2017; 51: 290-7. |
| 18. | Hao C, Wang G, Chen C, et al. Circularly polarized light-enabled chiral nanomaterials: from fabrication to application. Nanomicro Lett 2023; 15: 39. |
| [1] | SUN Jiao, WANG Yueming, LYU Jian, LIU Xin, YUE Bingnan, LI Yinyin, LIU Jipeng, SUN Yize, LIU Qingguo, YAN Liu. Effect of electroacupuncture on hypertensive and sympathetic excitability mechanism mediated by the paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus in spontaneous hypertensive rats [J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2025, 45(3): 586-596. |
| [2] | MIN Yu, ZHENG Meifeng, SUN Ju, PENG Zetong, CAO Zhixian, HUANG Xiaohua. Systematic acupuncture explains acupuncture at Baihui (GV20) and Fengchi (GB20) targeting the inflammatory response to regulate migraine [J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2025, 45(3): 610-617. |
| [3] | CHEN Shumin, LIU Zhenyu, JI Jia, CHANG Jin, LI Zhihua, WANG Yingying, YANG Jinsheng. Acupuncture with different frequencies for tobacco dependence: a randomized controlled trial [J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2025, 45(3): 651-659. |
| [4] | LI Yongfeng, CHEN Xinyi, REN Wei, QIAO Haifa. Electroacupuncture stimulation of auricular concha region improves loss of control over stress induced depression-like behavior by modulating 5-hydroxytryptamine 1A receptor [J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2025, 45(2): 326-334. |
| [5] | TIAN Yuan, BU He, WANG Tieshan, YANG Dongliang, ZHANG Wei, LIU Tong, ZHANG Li, HUO Zejun. Efficacy of electro-acupuncture at “Weizhong” (BL40) on macrophage polarization in rats with injured lumbar multifidus [J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2025, 45(2): 335-347. |
| [6] | HU Junwei, FENG Jiwei, LI Wen, LIU Lumin, LI Xu, XU Ge, LIU Jiandang, CHEN Yuelai. Electroacupuncture improves cyclophosphamide-induced bladder overactivity by reducing mechanotransduction in the rat urothelium [J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2025, 45(2): 348-358. |
| [7] | KANG Jiale, DU Zhongming, GUO Wei, DU Shuo, HAN Guanxiong, CHEN Sheng. Effect of acupuncture on serum levels of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis related hormones and immune factors in rats with allergic rhinitis [J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2025, 45(2): 359-367. |
| [8] | BAI Tianyu, YANG Jiaen, YIN Liang, LI Jinling, LIU Jianxian, LI Zongchang, SUN Zeming, JIA Ning, XU Chengchao. Effect of acupuncture on brain activity in patients with decreasing ovarian reserve: a resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging study [J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2025, 45(2): 450-457. |
| [9] | WU Jiaman, TANG Meng, LUO Yu, ZHU Haimin, ZHAO Tianqi, MA Fei, NING Yan. Electroacupuncture enhances the mitophagy of granulosa cells in premature ovarian insufficiency model mice by inactivating the hippo-yes-associated protein/transcriptional co-activator with postsynaptic density protein, drosophila disc large tumor suppressor, and zonula occludens-1 protein binding motif pathway [J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2025, 45(1): 13-21. |
| [10] | LI Siting, WANG Shaojun, YIN Yehui, DE Gejing, LI Caicai, WANG Ziyan, CAO Wenjie. Electroacupuncture alleviates zymosan-induced colorectal hypersensitivity [J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2025, 45(1): 32-38. |
| [11] | LANG Jiawang, JIN Lingqing, LUO Jianchang, LANG Boxu. Effects of acupuncture combined with bone-setting therapy to treat tourette syndrome: a three-arm randomized controlled trial [J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2025, 45(1): 176-183. |
| [12] | Emre Bulut, Didem Özkal Eminoğlu, Yasemin Çayır. Effect of electroacupuncture on pain after periodontal flap surgery: a randomized controlled trial [J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2025, 45(1): 184-191. |
| [13] | HE Ling, YANG Hui, LI Kang, WANG Junwen, SUN Zhibo, YANG Jinsheng, ZHANG Jing. Research on acupuncture robots based on the OptiTrack motion capture system and a robotic arm [J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2025, 45(1): 201-212. |
| [14] | WANG Bingyu, JIN Fangfang, GAO Jiawei, YANG Liuxin, ZHANG Yali, YUAN Xingxing, ZHANG Yang. Acupuncture reduces sedative and anaesthetic consumption and improves pain tolerance in patients undergoing colonoscopy: a Meta-analysis [J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2024, 44(6): 1091-1103. |
| [15] | ZHANG Boyang, ZHOU Yang, FENG Liyuan, SUI Dan, HE Lei, TONG Dan, WANG Ruoyu, SUI Xue, SONG Jing, WANG Dongyan. A neural regulation mechanism of head electroacupuncture on brain network of patients with stroke related sleep disorders [J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2024, 44(6): 1268-1276. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||
