de.mpg.escidoc.pubman.appbase.FacesBean
English
 
Help Guide Disclaimer Contact us Login
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Journal Article

Comparison of biomechanical properties between acupuncture and non-penetrating sham needle

MPS-Authors
http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/cone/persons/resource/persons83854

Um S-I, Yi S-H, Lee H, Chang,  D-S
Department Human Perception, Cognition and Action, Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Max Planck Society;

Locator
There are no locators available
Fulltext (public)
There are no public fulltexts available
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Chae, Y., Um S-I, Yi S-H, Lee H, Chang, D.-S., Yin, C., & Park, H.-J. (2011). Comparison of biomechanical properties between acupuncture and non-penetrating sham needle. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 19(Supplement 1), S8–S12. doi:10.1016/j.ctim.2010.09.002.


Cite as: http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0013-BCC2-E
Abstract
Objectives A non-penetrating sham needle has been considered as a reliable control treatment in the field of acupuncture research. However, some concerns with regard to the credibility of sham needles have also been raised. We investigated whether there were differences in biomechanical properties and acupuncture sensation ratings in the process of needling between verum acupuncture (VA) and sham acupuncture (SA). Methods To quantify biomechanical force during needling in a cross-over design, we used a computer-controlled needling system. Fourteen participants received VA or SA at acupuncture point LI4, with no visual impact. They were asked to complete an acupuncture sensation form, including penetration, acute pain and DeQi sensations, and to identify the needling type they received. Results We found that there was a significant difference in insertion force between VA and SA (68.5 ± 12.2 vs. 27.2 ± 3.9 gf; p < 0.001). Participants clearly distinguished between the two kinds of stimulation and rated higher sensory ratings in the VA session (penetration sensation: 4.9 ± 3.1 vs. 1.7 ± 2.3, acute pain: 4.9 ± 2.7 vs. 1.9 ± 2.6, respectively; p < 0.01). Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that differential biomechanical forces such as insertion and pullout force contribute to the sensation of real and non-penetrating sham needles.