Objective: To observe the clinical efficacy differences between different needling methods for dry eye syndrome.
Methods: Sixty patients of dry eye syndrome were randomly divided into an observation group and a control group, 30 cases (60 eyes) in each group. Shangjingming (Extra), Xiajingming (Extra), Tongziliao (GB 1), Cuanzhu (BL 2), Fengchi (GB 20), Hegu (LI 4), Sanyinjiao (SP 6), Taixi (KI 3) and Taichong (LR 3) were selected in the two groups. The control group was treated with conventional acupuncture, while the observation group was treated with guiding-qi acupuncture. Electroacupuncture (EA) was used at bilateral Tongziliao (GB1) and Cuanzhu (BL 2), 30 min per treatment. The treatment was given three times per week. Totally 1-month treatment (12 treatments) was given. The eye symptom score, breakup time of tear film (BUT), Schirmer Ⅰ test (SⅠT) and visual analogue scale (VAS) score were compared before and after treatment in the two groups. The clinical efficacy was compared between the two groups.
Results: Compared before treatment, the eye symptom score, BUT, SⅠT and VAS score were improved after treatment in the two groups (all P <0.001); the improvements of eye symptom score and SⅠT in the observation group were superior to those in the control group (both P<0.05). The differences of BUT and VSA score between the two groups were not significant (both P>0.05). The total effective rate was 86.7% (52/60) in the observation group, which was superior to 73.3% (44/60) in the control group (P<0.05). .
Conclusion: The conventional EA and guiding-qi acupuncture combined with EA are both effective for dry eye syndrome, and the efficacy of guiding-qi acupuncture combined with EA is superior to that of conventional EA.
Keywords: BUT; SⅠT; acupuncture; dry eye syndrome; electroacupuncture (EA); guiding-qi method.