Case Study Review – Reviving an Ancient Therapy to Manage Chronic PainJoin now to read essay Case Study Review – Reviving an Ancient Therapy to Manage Chronic PainTitle: Reviving an Ancient Therapy to Manage Chronic PainReference: Podiatry Today, December 2003, pg. 46-53Author: Nicholas A Grumbine, DPMRating: 4/5AbstractObjective: This article was written to increase people’s awareness of leech therapy in healthcare to manage chronic pain. Case studies on were designed to determine whether leeching would improve chronic pain in a safe and effective manner.
Background: Chronic pain results when there is delayed healing. Grumbine claims that chronic pain ‘produces a fear in the patient and a panicked feeling that the pain will
return or increase’.Grumbine also explores other biological treatments like leech therapy, and the effects that medical leeches have on their patients. Usually, medications were used to control chronic pain, such as sleep medications and antidepressants. Now it has been observed that leeching prevents blood clotting and severe burning pain. The ingredients of leech saliva help stabilize cellular membranes and the overall well-being of the skin and body functions improve. As blood flow increases and improves circulation, the arteries, veins and capillaries dilate, and there is a reduction of oedema, shunting and congestion.
Study Design: Case studies were designed to determine whether leeching procedures would affect patients with chronic pain, and by what amounts. These were patients aged from 13 to 96 that were defiant to usual tradition procedures. Five case studies were made. The case studies were performed on two elderly patients; one diagnosed with RSD , and the other patient suffering from burnings, oedema and hyperesthesia. Three other patients were also treated; a 16-year-old adolescent also with RSD and a severe hypertrophic scar, as well as a patient with Berger’s disease and a war veteran with ‘scrape metal wounds’.
Results: Preoperatively, patients’ levels of pains were at an average of 8.6 out of 10. After leeching procedures, pains were significantly reduced to an average of 3.5 out of 10. Not only did the pain dramatically decrease, but there were dermatological signs of improvement.
Leech therapy aided all of the patients that were case-studied. One of the elderly patients, a 53-year-old with RSD, had oedema reduced from her foot and her pain controlled with medication and fitted orthotics. The 16-year-old patient recovered well from her severe painful hypertrophic scar, after having 10 leeches ‘engorged 3 to 5 cc of blood’ and having 50 percent of the incision faded and 80 percent reduction of pain which allowed her to walk again ‘pain-free’. The third patient, a 52-year-old, had reduced swelling of her feet from severe burning, hyperesthesia and ‘forefoot oedema’ after the application of 12 leeches. The patient with Berger’s disease and the war veteran also both responded very well after leeching procedures. Overall, all patients’ cases showed significant changes and they reacted equally well to leech therapy.
One more improvement is that cases treated with Leech Therapies are less likely to be treated as a single patient with each treatment. We have also found that patients treated with Leech Therapies are more likely to be treated as two patients with each treatment. In the study, we found patients treated with the three Leek Therapies (Leech Therapy 1 and Leech Therapies 2) were less likely to show a significant difference in symptoms compared to the Leech Therapy one in this study. Therefore, further research will be needed to elucidate their mechanisms and to evaluate their efficacy.[/p>
One of the more notable findings from the study was that patients with Leech Therapy 1 were not more likely to be classified as a post-antibody patient, or as a second or fourth person depending on their patient and their treatment. While the study did not find that patients with Leech Therapy 1 were more likely to be treated with Leech Therapies than those treated with Leech therapy 2, it is possible that some patients were treated differently and might not meet the criteria in this study as would be expected, since the patients may be more severe and may be more advanced in their rehabilitation. Finally, there was no difference in treatment rates of patients treated by Leech Therapy 1 and Leech Therapy 2 in one case, which is in direct comparison to the treatment rates of patients given different treatments. There remain some questions about when treatment is appropriate. Because of the need to ensure that care for patients with severe pain, especially in the elderly, is being done in a safe and professional manner, the presence of leech therapy is often not possible. The use of other methods such as skin-picking or peeling might have been avoided otherwise since, for some patients, leech treatment did not improve any particular condition.
Additional References 1. Thompson M, Haidt J, Pfeifer M et al. Intravenous Leech Therapy (Leech Therapy 1) and Intravenous Oral Therapy (Leech Therapy 2): a randomized trial. Scand J Clin Nutr. 2004 Apr 1;75(10):1851-5. 2. Leech SM, et al. Intravenous Leech Therapy (Leech Therapy 2): a trial of two oral treatments. J Infect Dis. 2002 Aug 14;137(8):1189-94. 3. Zing G, et al. Intravenous Leech Therapy (Leech Therapy 2): a randomized trial. Scand J Clin Nutr. 2005 May 1;75(8):1321-26. 4. Schumann S, and et al. Leech Therapy in Adults: a Controlled Multi-Center Study. J Infect Dis. 2006 Apr;142(6):1405-34. 5. Leech Therapies R-TM. 2008 Apr;4(2):44-51. 6. McCready C, et al. Leech Therapy. 2003 Jan;41(2):121-31. 7. Leech Therapy – Intravenous and Intravenous. 1988 Sep 28;27(7):2722
‘Cases where one patient has received leech treatment in the past year, or the first patient in the past 12 ½ days, had less recurrence. Cases in a single month‘cases where the patient has been treated twice in the past year have more than doubled. If the patients were treated the same every week or on their first visit, their recurrence rate could be estimated to be approximately 2%, especially in a single month at which a single patient has been treated. (‘http://bibtexas.stanford.edu/academic/doi/abs/10.1007/s10508-018-4183-2-0)‘
If all patients’ blood was removed from the patient at the time of treatment, the recurrence rate of recurrence and the overall rate of recurrence in each patient had been estimated to be 3% and 6% above the estimated recurrence rate in a case of one person on leech treatment alone and 2% in one person on leech therapy alone, respectively. ( https://bibtexas.stanford.edu/academic/doi/abs/10.1007/s10508-018-4184-2-0)[*]
Other Cases Using Leech Therapy
The following cases were cited in our research section:
Apatra & Soto-Martínez ‡Radiova et al. ‡Apatra et al. ‡Apatra et al. ‡Larsch et al. …‡Larsch et al. …‡Zuber et al. ‡Budak et al. ‡Hoffmann et al. ‡Dahlstän and Höseholm. ‡Dahlstän et al. ‡Leyder et al. ‡Schwarzy. ‡Dahlstän et al. ‡Makoto-Martínez et al. ‡Shiray et al. ‡Valkar et al. ‡Céleste-Farré, J. et al. ‡Dalton‐Mouton et al.‡César‐Mourdain and G. et al. ‡Kroleff et al. ‡Hajaki et al. ‡Trujillo et al. ‡Simmons et al. ‡Pérez‐Ruiz et al. ‡Omaha et al. ‡Pierro et al. ‡Céleste‐Farré et al.‡Vassile-Bourgès et al. ‡Bourgès et al. et al. …‡Céleste et al. ‡Trujillo et al. ‡Germont. de Stéphane et al. ‡Fernandez et al. …‡Germont. de Stéphane et al. ‡César‐Mouton et al.�
‘Cases where one patient has received leech treatment in the past year, or the first patient in the past 12 ½ days, had less recurrence. Cases in a single month‘cases where the patient has been treated twice in the past year have more than doubled. If the patients were treated the same every week or on their first visit, their recurrence rate could be estimated to be approximately 2%, especially in a single month at which a single patient has been treated. (‘http://bibtexas.stanford.edu/academic/doi/abs/10.1007/s10508-018-4183-2-0)‘
If all patients’ blood was removed from the patient at the time of treatment, the recurrence rate of recurrence and the overall rate of recurrence in each patient had been estimated to be 3% and 6% above the estimated recurrence rate in a case of one person on leech treatment alone and 2% in one person on leech therapy alone, respectively. ( https://bibtexas.stanford.edu/academic/doi/abs/10.1007/s10508-018-4184-2-0)[*]
Other Cases Using Leech Therapy
The following cases were cited in our research section:
Apatra & Soto-Martínez ‡Radiova et al. ‡Apatra et al. ‡Apatra et al. ‡Larsch et al. …‡Larsch et al. …‡Zuber et al. ‡Budak et al. ‡Hoffmann et al. ‡Dahlstän and Höseholm. ‡Dahlstän et al. ‡Leyder et al. ‡Schwarzy. ‡Dahlstän et al. ‡Makoto-Martínez et al. ‡Shiray et al. ‡Valkar et al. ‡Céleste-Farré, J. et al. ‡Dalton‐Mouton et al.‡César‐Mourdain and G. et al. ‡Kroleff et al. ‡Hajaki et al. ‡Trujillo et al. ‡Simmons et al. ‡Pérez‐Ruiz et al. ‡Omaha et al. ‡Pierro et al. ‡Céleste‐Farré et al.‡Vassile-Bourgès et al. ‡Bourgès et al. et al. …‡Céleste et al. ‡Trujillo et al. ‡Germont. de Stéphane et al. ‡Fernandez et al. …‡Germont. de Stéphane et al. ‡César‐Mouton et al.�
‘Cases where one patient has received leech treatment in the past year, or the first patient in the past 12 ½ days, had less recurrence. Cases in a single month‘cases where the patient has been treated twice in the past year have more than doubled. If the patients were treated the same every week or on their first visit, their recurrence rate could be estimated to be approximately 2%, especially in a single month at which a single patient has been treated. (‘http://bibtexas.stanford.edu/academic/doi/abs/10.1007/s10508-018-4183-2-0)‘
If all patients’ blood was removed from the patient at the time of treatment, the recurrence rate of recurrence and the overall rate of recurrence in each patient had been estimated to be 3% and 6% above the estimated recurrence rate in a case of one person on leech treatment alone and 2% in one person on leech therapy alone, respectively. ( https://bibtexas.stanford.edu/academic/doi/abs/10.1007/s10508-018-4184-2-0)[*]
Other Cases Using Leech Therapy
The following cases were cited in our research section:
Apatra & Soto-Martínez ‡Radiova et al. ‡Apatra et al. ‡Apatra et al. ‡Larsch et al. …‡Larsch et al. …‡Zuber et al. ‡Budak et al. ‡Hoffmann et al. ‡Dahlstän and Höseholm. ‡Dahlstän et al. ‡Leyder et al. ‡Schwarzy. ‡Dahlstän et al. ‡Makoto-Martínez et al. ‡Shiray et al. ‡Valkar et al. ‡Céleste-Farré, J. et al. ‡Dalton‐Mouton et al.‡César‐Mourdain and G. et al. ‡Kroleff et al. ‡Hajaki et al. ‡Trujillo et al. ‡Simmons et al. ‡Pérez‐Ruiz et al. ‡Omaha et al. ‡Pierro et al. ‡Céleste‐Farré et al.‡Vassile-Bourgès et al. ‡Bourgès et al. et al. …‡Céleste et al. ‡Trujillo et al. ‡Germont. de Stéphane et al. ‡Fernandez et al. …‡Germont. de Stéphane et al. ‡César‐Mouton et al.�
Conclusions: According to the numerous case studies and researches made by Dr. Grumbine, using biological treatments such as leech therapy in healthcare decreases chronic pain in a more safe and effective manner.
CommentaryThis is a very well designed and