17: Case Studies

Published on 22/06/2015 by admin

Filed under Complementary Medicine

Last modified 22/04/2025

Print this page

rate 1 star rate 2 star rate 3 star rate 4 star rate 5 star
Your rating: none, Average: 0 (0 votes)

This article have been viewed 1432 times

CHAPTER 17 Case Studies

INTRODUCTION

The cases presented here illustrate two principles:

Standardized but Individualized INMAS Protocol

The INMAS treatment protocol ensures that every patient receives appropriately standardized treatment that is also adjusted to the patient’s personal condition. The INMAS protocol is described in detail in Chapter 5 and we provide only a summary here.

INMAS comprises three types of acupoint: homeostatic acupoints (HAs), symptomatic acupoints (SAs), and paravertebral acupoints (PAs). The HAs form the standardized part of the protocol and the SAs and PAs are used to adjust the protocol to each patient’s individual condition. For safety reasons, all patients are treated in recumbent positions: prone, supine, or on one side. All or some of the HAs available in the selected position are needled. The determination of whether to needle all or only some HAs depends on the patient’s needle tolerance and health. Fewer HAs will be used if the patient is less tolerant to needles, or is very weak and lacks sufficient energy to support the self-healing of a large number of needle-induced lesions. However fewer needles will also be appropriate for a patient who is very healthy, since in such a case a small number of needles will be sufficient for effective treatment. Weaker patients may feel very tired for a day or two after treatment.

About 5 to 10 SAs are commonly used for each treatment. The practitioner should palpate the symptomatic area carefully to find the most tender points.

PAs and SAs should be in the same segment. For example, PAs along C5-T1 are used for symptoms on the arm, whereas PAs along L3-L5 are used for knee pain.

The principles of quantitative evaluation and individualization of the standardized INMAS protocol are depicted in every case presented below. All of these cases involved real patients but their names have been changed to protect their privacy.

NECK AND BACK PAIN

Group A: Excellent Results

Case 1: Lower Back Pain

JK, a 42-year-old man, is a manager in a construction company. He is physically active and enjoys outdoor activities such as boating and hiking. One-and-a-half years ago, JK felt lower back pain after moving heavy furniture. After this episode, he was in constant pain that became more severe when he would sit down for about 30 minutes to work on his computer. The pain was more tolerable in the morning when he got up but sometimes became severe in the evening. He visited a chiropractor and several massage therapists, and obtained some relief for a short period following each treatment. A CT scan did not show any detectable problems.

Before the furniture-moving episode, JK occasionally felt soreness and stiffness in the lower back for a few days after heavy work. He had not had any accidents or severe injuries except for slightly hurting his biceps while doing weight lifting 6 years previously.

Quantitative evaluation placed JK in group A. Visual evaluation showed that his right shoulder was about 1 inch lower than his left. During physical examination, the right acupoints H14, H15, H16, and H22 were very tender upon palpation. The skin around right H15 was shiny, suggesting some swelling and inflammation. The impression was that the pain was caused by lumbar muscle strain. Considering that the pain had persisted for one and a half years, the prognosis was that it would take 4 to 8 treatments to achieve optimal recovery of the lumbar muscles for this group A individual.

Group B: Good Results

Group C: Average Results

Group D: Low Responders

Case 15: Lower Back Pain

KK is a 69-year-old businessman who appeared very tall and emaciated. He presented to the clinic for severe lower back and right leg pain. The pain was more prominent on the right side, especially exactly on the right buttock muscle gluteus maximus where H16 inferior gluteal is located. The pain radiated to the lateral side on the IT band and front thigh. Sometimes he felt pain in both thighs.

A computed axial tomography (CAT) scan showed multilevel degenerative and postoperative changes in this patient who had undergone a wide laminectomy between the L1-2 disk space and the L3-4 disk space. There was also a large disk herniation with material prolapsing behind the posterior lower half of the L3 vertebral body. The disk herniation to the left of midline appeared to be causing a mass effect on at least one root that passed over it. There was also evidence of a possible arachnoiditis, particularly to the right of midline at the L2-3 disk space level and at the L3-4 disk space level and a small neuroma at the L3-4 level.

KK used to be physically fit and active, a mountain climber. Four years ago, he started to feel lower back pain and some signs of Parkinson’s disease. He had lower back surgery 15 months ago but it did not help. He received one steroid injection, which reduced the pain for only 1 week. He was taking about twenty different drugs daily for various reasons. His muscles were weak because he could not exercise sufficiently.

Quantitative evaluation placed KK in group D. We warned KK that his case was not easy and that he should make a commitment to work with us for a while. He would also have to regularly use TENS, receive massages, and walk with a walker for at least 30 minutes daily.

We used the INMAS protocol with minor adjustment of the SAs according to his pain during every session. KK received two treatments a week for the first 2 weeks, then one session a week. He felt some improvement after each treatment, but the pain would come back the following day. After the eighth session, KK decided to stop acupuncture treatment and to have another surgery.

Some possible reasons why treatment was not successful were that KK was too weak to follow the home routine; his family and friends did not believe in acupuncture and thus did not adequately support him; and only a few treatments were delivered. It is also possible that acupuncture simply does not work in his case.

NECK AND UPPER LIMB PAIN

HIP, LOWER LIMB AND FOOT PAIN.

SHINGLES

Treatment Plan

Treatments were administered with the patient lying on her right side. The acupoints selected were:

This treatment plan was repeated for every session. Treatments were administered every day for 5 days.

From the sixth treatment, in addition to the above HAs and PAs, 25 to 30 small needles (15 mm in length) were inserted into the infected skin. This treatment was repeated once every other day. After the eighth treatment, YZ felt recovered but continued for two more sessions.

The efficacy of acupuncture in treating postherpetic neuralgia is very controversial. The basic mechanism of acupuncture therapy should here be mentioned again: acupuncture does not target particular symptoms but just activates the healing potential of the body. The efficacy of acupuncture treatments for postherpetic neuralgia (shingles) or trigeminal neuralgia mostly depends on the healing capacity of the body. In the case presented above, YZ is young and healthy, so recovery was expected. In cases with low self-healing potential, such as patients of group D, acupuncture efficacy drops as the number of passive acupoints in the body increases. This is why acupuncture, in cases of postherpetic neuralgia, offers good healing for some but little or no results for others.

HEADACHE

NON-PAIN SYMPTOMS

Please note that the prediction of non-pain symptoms is less reliable than pain symptoms, and therefore the prediction is omitted in these cases.