It showed that three sessions per week acupuncture intervention of knee osteoarthritis was feasible and safe. No difference was observed between groups due to small sample size. Larger (sample size ⩾ 296) randomized controlled trials of this intervention appear justified.

Objective: We aimed to explore the feasibility of evaluating the comparative effectiveness and safety of electroacupuncture (EA) relative to manual acupuncture (MA) for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Methods: A multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted in Beijing from September 2017 to January 2018. A total of 60 participants with KOA were randomly allocated to either EA ( n = 30) or MA ( n = 30) groups. Participants in the EA group were treated with EA at six to seven local traditional acupuncture points or ah shi points, and two to three distal points. Participants in the MA group had the same schedule as the EA group except that the electrical apparatus featured a working power indicator without actual current output, constituting a sham EA procedure, in order to blind participants. Both groups received 24 sessions over 8 weeks. The primary outcome was response rate, defined as a change of ⩾50% from baseline in the total scores of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) after 8 weeks. Secondary outcomes included pain, stiffness, function, quality of life, and acupuncture-related adverse events (AEs) at 4 and 8 weeks. Results: Of 60 participants randomized, 53 (88%) completed the study. Response rates were 43% for the EA group and 30% for the MA group by the intention-to-treat analysis. Although significant differences were observed in WOMAC pain, stiffness, and function scores within both groups, between-group differences at 8 weeks did not reach statistical significance (odds ratio = 1.75 (95% confidence interval = 0.593–5.162)). Rates of AEs were low and similarly distributed between groups. Conclusion: Both EA and MA interventions in KOA were feasible and appeared safe. Whether or not EA may have a stronger impact on pain and function requires further evaluation through larger, adequately powered, randomized controlled trials. Trial registration number: NCT03274713.

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to identify the mean safe needling depth and angle at BL40 between subjects, taking into account variables including sex and body mass index (BMI). Methods: One hundred and twenty-four participants who had undergone magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination of the knee region for clinical indications were included in this study. BL40 needling sites were localized by World Health Organization (WHO) standards and were measured by MRI. As much as 70% of the value of AN (from the needle insertion point to the popliteal artery) was considered to represent the safe depth, and angle alpha between the BL40 straight line and the AN line was regarded as the safe angle. Results: Overall, mean safe depth regardless of BMI and sex was 18.51 ± 3.56 mm (95% confidence interval (CI), 17.88%–19.14%). Mean safe depth was 17.24 ± 3.14 mm in the low and normal BMI group, 18.76 ± 2.90 mm in the overweight group, and 22.01 ± 3.71 mm in the obese group. Thirteen patients (10.5%) had internal deviation of angle alpha (95% CI, 5.6%–15.3%), while 111 patients (89.5%) had external deviation (95% CI, 84.7%–94.4%). The mean internal and external deviations of angle alpha were 8.78° ± 2.92° (95% CI, 7.01°–10.55°) and 9.75° ± 3.46° (95% CI, 9.10°–10.41°), respectively. Conclusion: We would suggest that, when using a straight needle insertion at BL40, it is safe to advance a 25-mm needle approximately 12.5 mm, and 17.5 mm should be safe for patients with BMI greater than 28 kg/m2. Practitioners should decrease the depth of penetration when treating patients of low body weight or height.