A comparative clinical study on Madhusiktadi Lepa with and without Siravyadha in the management of Padadari

Varsha M. Bhiradi; Prasadshakti G. Gannur; N.B. Mashetti

doi:10.21760/jaims.5.4.9

Varsha M. Bhiradi Post Graduate Scholar, Department of Shalya Tantra, Department of PG Studies in Shalya Tantra, B.L.D.E.A’s, AVS, Ayurveda Mahavidyalaya Hospital and Research Center, Vijayapur, Karnataka. INDIA.
Prasadshakti G. Gannur Associate Professor, Department of Shalya Tantra, Department of PG Studies in Shalya Tantra, B.L.D.E.A’s, AVS, Ayurveda Mahavidyalaya Hospital and Research Center, Vijayapur, Karnataka. INDIA.
N.B. Mashetti Professor and HOD, Department of Shalya Tantra, Department of PG Studies in Shalya Tantra, B.L.D.E.A’s, AVS, Ayurveda Mahavidyalaya Hospital and Research Center, Vijayapur, Karnataka. INDIA.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21760/jaims.5.4.9

Keywords: Padadari, Madhusiktadi Lepa, Siravyadha, Kshudra Roga, Marma.

Abstract

Movement is one of the important gifts of God to mankind. If the individual has proper movements then it is indicative of undisturbed health. In some disorders foot movement are impaired; Crack foot syndrome is one such disorder where the person is apparently healthy but unable to walk because of pain, bleeding coupled with itching. In Ayurveda, it is referred as Padadari. The disease involves the Vatadosha leading to dryness, cracks, and fissures. The symptoms may include Vedana, Kandu, Daha, Raktasrava. So, in case of Padadari Acharyas’ explained Snehan, Swedan, Siravyadha followed by Lepa are advised as line of treatment. So, in this study two modalities viz. Siravyadha and Lepa are selected. The study was carried out on 60 patients. These patients were divided into two groups A and B each of 30 patients. Group A patients received Madhusiktadi Lepa and group B received Siravyadha with Madhusiktadi Lepa. Considering thorough statistical analysis of various study parameters and patient responses to the treatment, it is observed that Group B treatment has shown relatively better performance than group A treatment. Group B treatment has shown 53.26% patients completely cured (76-100% cure) and 46.66% patients shown marked improvement which is between 51-75% cure. Whereas group A treatment has shown 39.9 % patients were completely cured (76-100% cure) and 60.0% marked improvement (51-75% cure).