• Journal of Pharmacopuncture
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.93-99
• /
• 2017

Objectives: Selaginella bryopteris L. (family: Selaginaceae), is often used in traditional Indian systems of medicine for the prevention and cure of several disorders and for the treatment of patient with spermatorrhoea, venereal disease, constipation, colitis, urinary tract infections, fever, epilepsy, leucorrhoea, beri-beri and cancer. It is also used as a strength tonic. This study aimed to evaluate the mechanisms underlying the anti-inflammatory effects of topically administered aqueous, polar and non-polar methanolic fractions ($10mg/20{\mu}L$) of Selaginella bryopteris. Methods: An acute oral toxicity study of Selaginella bryopteris at doses from 250 to 2,000 mg/kg body weight (bw) was performed. Aqueous, polar and non-polar methanolic extracts ($10mg/20{\mu}L$) applied topically for 5 days were evaluated for their anti-inflammatory effects against 12-tetra-O-decanoyl phorbol acetate (TPA)- induced inflammation by using the redness in the ear, the ear's weight (edema), oxidative stress parameters, such as lipid-peroxide (LPO) and nitric oxide (NO), and the pro-inflammatory cytokines involved in inflammation, such as tumour necrosis factor $(TNF)-{\alpha}$, interleukin $(IL)-1{\beta}$ and IL-6. Indomethacine ($0.5mg/20{\mu}L$) was used for the positive control. Results: Selaginella bryopteris produced no mortalities when administered orally at doses from 250 to 2,000 mg/kg bw. Topical treatment with the non-polar methanolic fraction ($10mg/20{\mu}L$) significantly suppressed redness ($2.4{\pm}0.5$) and edema ($30.4{\pm}1$) and effectively reduced the LPO level ($32.3{\pm}3.3$). The NO level was ($8.07{\pm}0.55$), and the $TNF-{\alpha}$, $IL-1{\beta}$, and IL-6 levels were decreased to $69.6{\pm}15.5$, $7.7{\pm}4.8$ and $82.6{\pm}5.9$, respectively. Conclusion: This study demonstrated for the first time the mechanisms underlying the anti-inflammatory effect of medicinal plants like Selaginella bryopteris and quantified the pharmacological interactions between them. The present study showed this herbal product to be a promising anti-inflammatory phytomedicine for the treatment of patients with inflammatory skin diseases.

• Journal of Oral Medicine and Pain
• /
• v.36 no.1
• /
• pp.21-24
• /
• 2011

Xerostomia is subjective feeling of dry mouth, a symptom that may or may not be accompanied by hyposalivation, an objective decrease in salivary flow. There are many causes induced xerostomia like drugs, salivary gland diseases, radiation therapy to the head and neck region, Sjogren syndrome, emotional stress etc. Insufficient salivary flow creates complications with oral candidiasis, dental caries, periodontitis, halitosis, dysgeusia. So finally, these complications lead to an overall decline in quality of life. Managements of xerostomia are eliminating or alterating the etiologic factors, relieving symptoms, preventing or correcting the consequences of salivary dysfunction, treating underlying disease and stimulating salivation. One of the salivation stimulation agents studied to treat xerostomia was the pilocarpine muscarinic agonist. Pilocarpine is one of salivation stimulants, a parasympathomimetic drug and non-selective muscarinic receptor agonist. Systemic pilocarpine has been used to stimulate salivary secretion. But systemic administration of pilocarpine has limitations such as increased risk of side effects and contraindications. Side effects of systemic pilocarpine administration are sweating, urinary and gastrointestinal disturbance, risk of cardiovascular and pulmonary disorders. This drug must be used carefully by patients with controlled asthma, chronic bronchitis, pulmonary or cardiac disease. Patient with acute asthma, narrow angle glaucoma, iritis should not use pilocarpine. Like this, systemic pilocarpine has many limitations. So, many investigators also have looked at the effectiveness of topical pilocarpine. Here we present patients with xerostomia which was relieved by pilocarpine mouthwash.

• Korean Journal of Psychosomatic Medicine
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.72-78
• /
• 2023

Objectives : This study aims to identify various psychiatric symptoms and psychosomatic symptoms caused by COVID-19 infection and investigate their long-term impact. Methods : A systematic literature review was conducted, selecting papers from domestic and international databases using keywords such as "COVID-19" and "psychosomatic." A total of 16 papers, including those using structured measurement tools for psychosomatic symptoms, were included in the final analysis. Results : Psychiatric symptoms such as anxiety, depression, and somatic symptoms have been reported in acute COVID-19 infection, while long-term post-COVID symptoms include chest pain and fatigue. The frequency of long-term psychosomatic symptoms has been estimated to be 10%-20%. Factors contributing to these symptoms include psychological and social stress related to infectious diseases, gender, elderly age, a history of psychiatric disorders, and comorbid mental illnesses. It is suggested that systemic inflammation, autoimmune responses, and dysregulation of the autonomic nervous system may be involved. Conclusions : Psychosomatic symptoms arising after COVID-19 infection have a negative impact on quality of life and psychosocial functioning. Understanding and addressing psychiatric aspects are crucial for symptom prevention and treatment.

• Journal of Haehwa Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.595-646
• /
• 2000

I. Introduction Bi(痺) means blocking. BiJeung is one kind of symptoms making muscles, bones and jonts feel pain, numbness or edema. For example it can be gout or SLE etc. says that Bi is combination of PungHanSeup. And many doctors said that BiJeung is caused by food, fatigue, sex, stress and change of weather. Therefore we must treat BiJeung by character of patients and characteristic of the disease. Many famous doctors studied medical science by their fathers or teachers. So the history of medical science is long. So I studied ${\ll}Bijeungjujip{\gg}$. II. Final Decision 1. JoGeumTak(趙金鐸) devided BiJeung into Pung, Han, Seup and EumHeo, HeulHeo, YangHeo, GanSinHeo by charcter or reaction of pain. And he use DaeJinGyoTang, GyegiGakYakJiMoTang, SamyoSan, etc. 2. JangPaeGyeu(張沛圭) focused on division of HanYeol(寒熱; coldness and heat) in spite of complexity of BiJeung. He also used insects for treatment. They are very useful for treatment of BiJeung because they can remove EoHyeol(瘀血). 3. SeolMaeng(薛盟) said that the actual cause of BiJeung is Seup. So he thought that BiJeung can be divided into PungSeup, SeupYeol, HanSeup. And he established 6 rules to treat BiJeung and he studied herbs. 4. JangGi(張琪) introduced 10 prescriptions and 10 rules to cure BiJeung. The 1st prescription is for OyeSa, 2nd for internal Yeol, 3rd for old BiJeung, 4th for Soothing muscles, 5th for HanSeup, 6th for regular BiJeung, 7th for functional disorder, 8th for YeolBi, 9th for joint pain and 10th for pain of lower limb. 5. GangSeYoung(江世英) used PungYeongTang(風靈湯) for the treatment of PungBi, OGyeHeukHoTang(烏桂黑虎湯) for HanBi, BangGiMokGwaTang(防己木瓜湯) for SeupBi, YeolBiTang(熱痺湯) for YeolBi, WoDaeRyeokTang(牛大力湯) for GiHei, HyeolPungGeunTang(血楓根湯) for HyeolHeo, ToJiRyongTang(土地龍湯) for the acute stage of SeupBi, OJoRyongTang(五爪龍湯) for the chronic stage of SeupBi, and so on. 6. ShiGeumMook(施今墨) devided BiJeung into four types. They are PungSeupYeol, PungHanSeup, GiHyeolSil(氣血實) and GiHyeolHeo(氣血虛). And he introduced the eight rules of the treatment(SanPun(散風), ChukHan(逐寒), GeoSeuP(, CheongYeol(淸熱), TongRak(通絡), HwalHyeol(活血), HaengGi(行氣), BoHeo(補虛)). 7. WangYiYou(王李儒) explained the acute athritis and said that it can be applicable to HaneBi(行痺). And he used GyeJiJakYakJiMoTang(桂枝芍蘂知母湯) for HanBi and YeolBiJinTongTang(熱痺鎭痛湯) for YeolBi. 8. JangJinYeo(章眞如) said that YeolBi is more common than HanBi. The sympthoms of YeolBi are severe pain, fever, dried tongue, insomnia, etc. And he devided YeolBi into SilYeol and HeoYeol. In case of SilYeol, he used GyeoJiTangHapBaekHoTang(桂枝湯合白虎湯) and in case of HeoYeol he used JaEumYangAekTang(滋陰養液湯). 9. SaHaeJu(謝海洲) introduced three important rules of treatment and four appropriate rules of treatment of BiJeung. 10. YouDoJu(劉渡舟) said that YeolBi is more common than HanBi. He used GaGamMokBanGiTang(加減木防已湯) for YeolBi, GyeJiJakYakJiMoTang or GyeJiBuJaTang(桂枝附子湯) for HanBi and WooHwangHwan(牛黃丸) for the joint pain. 11. GangYiSon(江爾遜) focused on the internal cause. The most important internal cause is JeongGiHeo(正氣虛). So he tried to treat BiJeung by means of balance of Gi and Hyeol. So he ususlly used ODuTang(烏頭湯) and SamHwangTang(三黃湯) for YeolBi, OJeokSan(五積散) for HanBi, SamBiTang(三痺湯) for the chronic BiJeung. 12. HoGeonHwa(胡建華) said that to distinguish YeolBi from Hanbi is very difficult. So he used GyeJiJakYakJiMoTang in case of mixture of HanBi and YeoBi. 13. PiBokGo(畢福高) said that the most common BiJeung is HanBi. He usually used acupuncture with medicine. He followed the theory of EumYongHwa(嚴用和)-he focused on SeonBoHuSa(先補後瀉). 14. ChoiMunBin(崔文彬) used GeoPungHwalHyeolTang(祛風活血湯) for HanBi, SanHanTongRakTang(散寒通絡湯) for TongBi(痛痺), LiSeupHwaRakTang(利濕和絡湯) for ChakBi(着痺), CheongYeolTongGyeolChukBiTang(淸熱通經逐痺湯) for YeolBi(熱痺) and GeoPungHwalHyeolTang(祛風活血湯) for PiBi(皮痺). 15. YouleokSeon(劉赤選) introduced the common principle for the treatment of BiJeung. He used HaePuneDeungTang(海風藤湯) for HaengBi(行痺), SinChakTang(腎着湯), DokHwalGiSaengTang(獨活寄生湯) for TongBi(痛痺), TongPungBang(痛風方) for ChakBi(着痺) and SangGiYiMiTangGaYeongYangGakTang(桑枝苡米湯加羚羊角骨) for YeolBi(熱痺). 16. LimHakHwa(林鶴和) said about TanTan(movement disorders or numbness) and devided TanTan into the acute stage and the chronic stage. He used acupuncture at the meridian spot like YeolGyeol(列缺), HapGok(合谷), etc. And he also used MaHwangBuJaSeSinTang(麻黃附子細辛湯) in case of the acute stage. In the chronic stage he used BangPungTang(防風湯). 17. JinBaekGeun(陳伯勤) liked to use three rules(HwaHyeol(活血), ChiDam(治痰), BoSin(補腎)) to treat BiJeung. He used JinTongSan(鎭痛散) for the purpose of HwalHyeol(活血), SoHwalRakDan(小活絡丹) for ChiDam(治痰) and DokHwalGiSaengTang(獨活寄生湯) for BoSin(補腎). 18. YimGyeHak(任繼學) focused on YangHyeolJoGi(養血調氣) if the stage of BiJeung is chronic. And in the chronic stage he insisted on not using GalHwal(羌活), DokHwal(獨活) and BangPung(防風).

• Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea
• /
• v.36 no.3
• /
• pp.183-196
• /
• 2017

Objective: The purpose of this research was to assess the agreement between job physical risk factor analysis by ergonomists using ergonomic methods and physical examinations made by occupational physicians on the presence of musculoskeletal disorders of the upper extremities. Background: Ergonomics is the systematic application of principles concerned with the design of devices and working conditions for enhancing human capabilities and optimizing working and living conditions. Proper ergonomic design is necessary to prevent injuries and physical and emotional stress. The major types of ergonomic injuries and incidents are cumulative trauma disorders (CTDs), acute strains, sprains, and system failures. Minimization of use of excessive force and awkward postures can help to prevent such injuries Method: Initial data were collected as part of a larger study by the University of Utah Ergonomics and Safety program field data collection teams and medical data collection teams from the Rocky Mountain Center for Occupational and Environmental Health (RMCOEH). Subjects included 173 male and female workers, 83 at Beehive Clothing (a clothing plant), 74 at Autoliv (a plant making air bags for vehicles), and 16 at Deseret Meat (a meat-processing plant). Posture and effort levels were analyzed using a software program developed at the University of Utah (Utah Ergonomic Analysis Tool). The Ergonomic Epicondylitis Model (EEM) was developed to assess the risk of epicondylitis from observable job physical factors. The model considers five job risk factors: (1) intensity of exertion, (2) forearm rotation, (3) wrist posture, (4) elbow compression, and (5) speed of work. Qualitative ratings of these physical factors were determined during video analysis. Personal variables were also investigated to study their relationship with epicondylitis. Logistic regression models were used to determine the association between risk factors and symptoms of epicondyle pain. Results: Results of this study indicate that gender, smoking status, and BMI do have an effect on the risk of epicondylitis but there is not a statistically significant relationship between EEM and epicondylitis. Conclusion: This research studied the relationship between an Ergonomic Epicondylitis Model (EEM) and the occurrence of epicondylitis. The model was not predictive for epicondylitis. However, it is clear that epicondylitis was associated with some individual risk factors such as smoking status, gender, and BMI. Based on the results, future research may discover risk factors that seem to increase the risk of epicondylitis. Application: Although this research used a combination of questionnaire, ergonomic job analysis, and medical job analysis to specifically verify risk factors related to epicondylitis, there are limitations. This research did not have a very large sample size because only 173 subjects were available for this study. Also, it was conducted in only 3 facilities, a plant making air bags for vehicles, a meat-processing plant, and a clothing plant in Utah. If working conditions in other kinds of facilities are considered, results may improve. Therefore, future research should perform analysis with additional subjects in different kinds of facilities. Repetition and duration of a task were not considered as risk factors in this research. These two factors could be associated with epicondylitis so it could be important to include these factors in future research. Psychosocial data and workplace conditions (e.g., low temperature) were also noted during data collection, and could be used to further study the prevalence of epicondylitis. Univariate analysis methods could be used for each variable of EEM. This research was performed using multivariate analysis. Therefore, it was difficult to recognize the different effect of each variable. Basically, the difference between univariate and multivariate analysis is that univariate analysis deals with one predictor variable at a time, whereas multivariate analysis deals with multiple predictor variables combined in a predetermined manner. The univariate analysis could show how each variable is associated with epicondyle pain. This may allow more appropriate weighting factors to be determined and therefore improve the performance of the EEM.