Article

Acupuncture for functional gastrointestinal disorders

Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27705, USA.
Journal of Gastroenterology (Impact Factor: 4.02). 06/2006; 41(5):408-17. DOI: 10.1007/s00535-006-1773-6
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Functional gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms are common in the general population. Especially, motor dysfunction of the GI tract and visceral hypersensitivity are important. Acupuncture has been used to treat GI symptoms in China for thousands of years. It is conceivable that acupuncture may be effective in patients with functional GI disorders because it has been shown to alter acid secretion, GI motility, and visceral pain. Acupuncture at the lower limbs (ST-36) causes muscle contractions via the somatoparasympathetic pathway, while at the upper abdomen (CV-12) it causes muscle relaxation via the somatosympathetic pathway. In some patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and functional dyspepsia (FD), peristalsis and gastric motility are impaired. The stimulatory effects of acupuncture at ST-36 on GI motility may be beneficial to patients with GERD or FD, as well as to those with constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), who show delayed colonic transit. In contrast, the inhibitory effects of acupuncture at CV-12 on GI motility may be beneficial to patients with diarrhea-predominant IBS, because enhanced colonic motility and accelerated colonic transit are reported in such patients. Acupuncture at CV-12 may inhibit gastric acid secretion via the somatosympathetic pathway. Thus, acupuncture may be beneficial to GERD patients. The antiemetic effects of acupuncture at PC-6 (wrist) may be beneficial to patients with FD, whereas the antinociceptive effects of acupuncture at PC-6 and ST-36 may be beneficial to patients with visceral hypersensitivity. In the future, it is expected that acupuncture will be used in the treatment of patients with functional GI disorders.

Full-text

Available from: Toku Takahashi, Apr 16, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
573 Views
  • Medical Acupuncture 02/2013; 25(1):78-87. DOI:10.1089/acu.2012.0931
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Gastric slow waves (GSW) are known to regulate gastric motility and are impaired with rectal distention (RD). Electroacupuncture (EA) at body acupoints, such as ST 36, has been shown to improve gastric dysrhythmias; however, little is known about the possible effects of auricular electroacupuncture (AEA) on GSW. To study effects and possible mechanisms of AEA on RD-induced gastric dysrhythmias in rats, ten male Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats implanted with gastric serosal electrodes were studied in two different experiments in fed state. Four sessions were performed in experiment 1 as follows: control (RD, no stimulation), RD+AEA, RD+EA at body points and RD+sham AEA. Two sessions were included in experiment 2 to study mechanisms of AEA: RD + atropine and RD + atropine + AEA. It was found that 1) RD significantly decreased the percentage of normal GSW from 89.8±3.5% to 76.0±3.3% (P<0.05); 2) AEA increased the percentage of normal GSW during RD to 94.0±2.1% (P<0.05 vs. RD) via a reduction in the percentages of tachygastria and arrhythmia (P<0.05 vs. RD); 3) atropine blocked the ameliorating effect of AEA on RD-induced gastric dysrhythmias. Our results demonstrated that RD induces gastric dysrhythmias in fed state in rats. AEA improves RD-induced gastric dysrhythmias via the vagal pathway. AEA may have a therapeutic potential in treating gastric dysrhythmias.
    PLoS ONE 02/2015; 10(2):e0114226. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0114226 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We have recently proved electroacupuncture (EA) ST36 exerted an anti-inflammatory effect in the early phase of intra-abdominal adhesion formation. Evidences indicate that the anti-inflammatory effect of EA ST36 involves a cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway-dependent mechanism via the vagus nerve. However, the exact effects and accurate vagal modulation of acupuncture in prevention of postoperative intra-abdominal adhesion formation has not been thoroughly evaluated. Sprague-Dawley rats subjected to abdominal adhesion lesions operation at the cecum and abdominal wall were randomly divided into six groups as follows: (a) EAN: EA non-channel acupoints; (b) EA: EA ST36 after abdominal lesions; (c) VGX/EA: vagotomy (VGX) after abdominal lesions, then EA ST36; (d) VGX/EAN: VGX after abdominal lesions, then EAN; (e) α-BGT/EA: intraperitoneal injection of α-bungarotoxin (α-BGT, an antagonist of α7 subunit of cholinergic nicotinic receptor) before EA ST36, and (f) α-BGT/EAN group: α-BGT injection before EAN. Seven days after abdominal surgical lesions, the levels of tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in the adhesive tissue were evaluated, macroscopic observation and histopathologic evaluation of adhesion formation and assessment of angiogenesis by immunohistochemical staining of platelet endothelial cell adhesion molecule-1 (CD31) were performed. EA ST36 reduced TNF-α and VEGF levels in adhesive tissue homogenates 7 d after surgery, whereas vagotomy or intraperitoneal injection of α-BGT before EA ST36 reversed its suppressive effects. EA at non-channel acupoints with or without vagotomy or intraperitoneal injection of α-BGT before EA had no suppressive effects on TNF-α and VEGF levels. EA ST36 alleviated the adhesion formation, with both of macroscopic and histopathologic adhesion scores significantly lower than those of the EAN group (1.56 ± 0.29 versus 3.00 ± 0.82, 1.35 ± 0.4 versus 3.91 ± 0.8, respectively, both P < 0.05). Compared with the EAN group, EA ST36 significantly decreased angiogenesis evidenced by reduced CD31 positive microvessel density in adhesive tissue. EA ST36 might reduce the postoperative local inflammatory response, attenuate the angiogenesis, and alleviate the adhesion formation partly via activating the cholinergic anti-inflammatory mechanism. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Journal of Surgical Research 12/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.jss.2014.12.043 · 2.12 Impact Factor