Trial reportJournal of pain research2026
Feasibility, Safety, and Effectiveness of Ultrasound-Guided Acupotomy Treatment for Degenerative Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Journal of pain research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and preliminary clinical effect of ultrasound-guided acupotomy (UA) compared with conventional physical therapy (CPT) in patients with degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). Patients and Methods: This single-center, pilot randomized controlled trial included 50 participants with degenerative LSS, randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either UA or CPT (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and microwave diathermy). Both groups underwent eight treatment sessions over 4 weeks. Feasibility was assessed through recruitment, attrition rates, and protocol adherence, while safety was monitored through adverse events (AEs). Clinical outcomes, including the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), maximum walking distance, and EuroQol 5-Dimension (EQ-5D), were measured at baseline and at weeks 5, 8, and 12. Results: The attrition rate was 8.0% (UA: 0% [n=0] vs CPT: 16.0% [n=4]), and protocol adherence was 98.3% (UA: 100% [200/200 sessions] vs CPT: 96.5% [193/200 sessions]). No serious intervention-related AEs, specifically iatrogenic neural or vascular injuries, occurred. Minor AEs in the UA group were mild and resolved spontaneously. At follow-up assessments, the UA group exhibited statistically significantly greater improvements in VAS, ZCQ, and EQ-VAS scores compared to the CPT group (p < 0.05). Significant intergroup differences in ODI and EQ-5D were observed only at weeks 8 and 12, respectively. Regarding VAS scores, improvements in the UA group were sustained over time, whereas the CPT group showed a gradual decline in therapeutic effects. Conclusion: UA demonstrated feasibility, acceptable short-term procedural safety, and tolerability for degenerative LSS, suggesting potential short-term benefits in pain relief and functional recovery compared with CPT. These exploratory results warrant future large-scale confirmatory clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.