Background
Conventional treatments for knee osteoarthritis (KOA) often fall short in providing optimal outcomes.
Conclusion
Warm needle therapy guided by ultrasound, in combination with meloxicam, significantly improves pain relief, physical function, inflammatory modulation, and patient satisfaction in KOA patients.
Methods
In this retrospective study, the clinical records of patients with KOA undergoing either meloxicam alone or meloxicam combined with warm needle therapy were reviewed. Various parameters, including pain evaluations, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores, range of motion for knee flexion, knee society scores, quality of life scores, inflammatory factor levels, and patient satisfaction were comparatively analyzed.
Objective
To evaluate the effect of warm needle therapy guided by ultrasound on pain relief and physical function in patients with KOA.
Results
A total of 140 patients were included, including 68 patients treated by Meloxicam and 72 patients treated by Meloxicam and warm needle therapy. Following treatment, the meloxicam combined with warm needle therapy group exhibited lower pain scores (3.62±1.98 vs. 4.38±1.95, P=0.023), improved WOMAC scores (27.82±8.75 vs. 31.25±8.82, P=0.022), increased range of motion (136.82°±8.58° vs. 133.43°±8.86°, P=0.023), higher knee society scores (93.32±7.21 vs. 90.21±7.78, P=0.016), and superior Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36) scores (81.24±6.33 vs. 78.43±6.85, P=0.013). Furthermore, a significant reduction in inflammatory factors including interleukin-8 (IL-8), matrix metalloproteinase-3 (MMP-3), Interleukin-1 beta (IL-1β), Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha (TNF-α), and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) levels was observed in the meloxicam combined with warm needle therapy group compared to the meloxicam alone group (all P<0.05). Patient satisfaction was likewise notably higher in the meloxicam combined with warm needle therapy group (8.43±2.15 vs. 7.58±2.24, P=0.024), with a greater proportion of patients willing to recommend the treatment (81.94% vs. 64.71%, P=0.034).