Therapeutic effect of electroacupuncture, massage, and blocking therapy on external humeral epicondylitis

OBJECTIVE: To compare two therapeutic methods: electroacupuncture + massage + blocking therapy, and blocking therapy alone in the treatment of external humeral epicondylitis. METHODS: Eighty-six patients were randomized into two groups with 43 in each. The treatment group received electroacupuncture + massage + blocking therapy, while the control group received blocking therapy only. A course of electroacupuncture treatment included therapy once a day for 10 days. There were 10 treatments in a massage course and massage was given once a day, with a 1-week interval given before the next course. A course of blocking treatment included therapy once a week, for two total treatments, and generally no more than three times. The therapeutic effects were evaluated with the visual analog scale (VAS), grip strength index (GSI) score, and Mayo elbow performance score (MEPS) before treatment and at 0, 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment to observe the total effective rate. RESULTS: In the treatment and control groups before treatment and at 0, 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment, the VAS scores were: 6.5 +/- 1.9 and 6.4 +/- 1.6; 4.6 +/- 1.3 and 4.6 +/- 1.7; 4.8 +/- 1.3 and 4.8 +/- 1.2; 4.6 +/- 1.2 and 6.6 +/- 1.6; and 6.5 +/- 1.6 and 6.5 +/- 1.3, respectively. The GSI scores were 63 +/- 8 and 63 +/- 8; 84 +/- 6 and 82 +/- 7; 82 +/- 7 and 82 +/- 6; 84 +/- 6 and 62 +/- 8; and 64 +/- 6 and 64 +/- 7, respectively. The MEPS of both groups were 65 +/- 7 and 66 +/- 8; 85 +/- 6 and 84 +/- 7; 84 +/- 5 and 84 +/- 7; 80 +/- 7 and 66 +/- 6; and 65 +/- 6 and 65 +/-7, respectively. The total effective rates of the treatment and control groups at 0, 6, 12, and 24 months after treatment were 87.5% and 85.0%; 85.0% and 82.5%; 80.0% and 12.5%; and 2.5% and 5.0%, respectively. Compared with the treatment group, the control group had greater joint function, better therapeutic effect, and lower pain intensity (P<0.01), indicating a high recurrence rate in the 12th month after treatment. There were no differences in VAS, GSI, or MEPS at 0, 6, and 24 months after treatment (P> 0.05) between the two groups. CONCLUSION: We found that both methods were effective for external humeral epicondylitis. After 6 months of treatment, the effects were good in both groups. However, in the 12th month, the control group had a relatively severe relapse. After 24 months, both groups relapsed. The effect of electroacupuncture, massage, and blocking therapy used in combination lasted longer, delaying the recurrence of the disease.