menu

home About us publication ethics review procedure author instructions current archive submission editorial board indexing contact us publication fees download join as reviewer

abstract

VOLUME 3, JUNE ISSUE 6

CLINICAL EFFICACY OF DWIPANCHAMULADHYA TAILA KATIBASTI AND VATARI GUGGULU OVER KSHEERABALA TAILA KATIBASTI AND TRAYODASHANGA GUGGULU IN THE MANAGEMENT OF KATIGATAVATA WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO LOWBACK PAIN

Dr. Savitri Masali*, Dr. Sanjay M. Kadlimatti

Katigatavata is one of the Sandhigata Vatavyadhi. Based on pathophysiology and symptoms of Katigatavata, it is compared with low back pain in modern science. Common factors that contribute to the disease are poor posture, unhealthy eating habits, and frequent travel in uncomfortable vehicles. The last few decades have shown that socio economic factors have a great influence on health. Hence in this study an attempt is made to evaluate the efficacy of Dwipanchamuladhya taila Katibasti and Vatari Guggulu over Ksheerabala taila Katibasti and Trayodashanga Guggulu in the management of Katigatavata (lowbackpain). Objective: To evaluate and compare the efficacy of Dwipanchamuladhya taila Katibasti with Vatari Guggulu and Ksheerabala taila Katibasti with Trayodashanga Guggulu in the management of Katigatavata (Lowback pain). Materials and Methods: It is a randomized comparative clinical study was conducted on 40 patients diagnosed with Katigatavata (Lowback pain), selected from the OPD and IPD of BLDEA’s AVS Ayurveda Mahavidyalaya Hospital, Vijayapura. Patients were randomly divided into two groups of 20 each. Group A received Dwipanchamuladhya Taila katibasti along with Vatari Guggulu orally, while Group B received Ksheerabala Taila Katibasti with Trayodashanga Guggulu orally. Assessment was carried out using subjective and objective parameters before and after treatment. Statistical analysis was performed using paired and unpaired t-tests. Results: Group A showed 35% excellent response, 40% good response, 15% moderate response, and 10% mild response, whereas Group B showed 35% excellent response, 35% good response, 10% moderate response, and 20% mild response. Both groups demonstrated statistically significant improvement, with Group B showing comparatively better overall efficacy.

[get full article]