“通络理筋”法治疗神经根型颈椎病的临床观察  

The clinical efficacy of collateral-dredging and tendon-regulating method on cervical spondylotic radiculopathy

作　　者：张丽丽[1] 郭治波[1] 杜宇征[2] 张震宇[2] 蔡斐[2] 李琛[2] 张坤[3] 郑万鹏[3] 陈国华 吕树刚 

机构地区：[1]天津中医药大学研究生院,300193 [2]天津中医药大学第一附属医院针灸科 [3]天津中医药大学第二附属医院 [4]天津北辰区中医医院

出　　处：《中华针灸电子杂志》2013年第3期5-8,共4页Chinese Journal of Acupuncture and Moxibustion（Electronic Edition）

摘　　要：目的：观察“通络理筋”法治疗神经根型颈椎病的临床疗效。方法将2007年10月至2009年12月在天津中医药大学第一附属医院、天津市北辰区中医医院和天津中医药大学第二所属医院收治的132例神经根型颈椎病患者，通过中央随机法分为通络理筋组、通络组、推拿组，其中通络理筋组45例，通络组42例，推拿组45例，三组患者年龄的中位数分别为48.0岁、52.5岁和53.0岁。通络理筋组采用针刺与推拿并用的治疗方法，通络组采用针刺方法治疗，推拿组采用推拿方法治疗。观察治疗前后三组的疼痛评分和中医症状改善有效率。多组间疼痛评价采用单因素方差分析，组间两两比较采用LSD-t检验，中医症状改善有效率比较使用χ2检验。结果通络理筋组、通络组和推拿组治疗前组间疼痛评分比较，差异无统计学意义（F=2.07，P＞0.05）。治疗后3组疼痛评分分别为（5.15±0.88）、（5.19±1.46）、（5.90±1.29），组间比较差异有统计学意义（F=20.43，P＜0.05）；疼痛改善值分别为（5.98±1.87）、（5.85±1.52）、（4.97±1.37），组间比较差异有统计学意义（F=20.20，P＜0.05）。通络组与推拿组比较，治疗后疼痛评分、疼痛改善差值间差异有统计学意义（t=-6.366，6.938；P＜0.05）；通络理筋组与推拿组比较，治疗后疼痛评分、疼痛改善差值间差异有统计学意义（t=-4.874，4.435；P＜0.05）；而通络理筋组与通络组的治疗后疼痛评分、疼痛改善差值间差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。在中医症状改善方面，通络理筋组总有效率为91.1%（41/45），通络组为71.4%（30/42），推拿组为68.9%（31/45），通络理筋组与通络组比较，差异有统计学意义（χ2=4.373，P＜0.05）；与推拿组比较，差异也有统计学意义（χ2=5.625，P＜0.05）；而推拿组与通络组组间差异无统计学意义（χ2=0.067，P＞0.05）。各组均无Objective To evaluate the efficacy of collateral-dredging and tendon-regulating method on cervical spondylotic radiculopathy. Methods A total of 132 cases, treated in the hospital from October 2007 to December 2009, were randomly divided into three groups:treatment group (collateral-dredging and tendon-regulating method, n=45), acupuncture group (collateral-dredging method, n=42) and massage group (n=45). The median age of each group was 48.0, 52.5 and 53.0 years old. The pain score and traditional Chinese medicine symptoms were observed before and after treatment in three groups. The one-way analysis of variance was used to compare pain scores between groups. LSD-t test was used to compare the difference between every two groups. The efficacies before and after the treatment between groups were evaluated by Chi-square test. Results There were no significant differences in pain scores before treatment between treat-ment group, acupuncture group and massage group (F=2.07,P>0.05). There were significant differences in pain scores after treatment between the three groups (5.15±0.88,5.19±1.46 and 5.90±1.29) respectively (F=20.43,P<0.05). The improvement of the pain score were(5.98±1.87),(5.85±1.52) and (4.97±1.37) respective-ly, the differences between three groups were statistically significant (F=20.20,P<0.05). There were significant differences in pain score and the improvement of the pain score between acupuncture group and massage group (t=-6.366,6.938;P<0.05). There were also significant differences in pain score and the improvement of the pain score after treatment between treatment group and massage group (t=4.874,4.435;P<0.05). There were no significant differences in the analgesic effect between treatment group and acupuncture group (P>0.05). The total effective rates were 91.1% in treatment group,71.4% in acupuncture group and 68.9% in massage group. There was significant difference in effective rate between treatment group and acupuncture group (χ2=4.373,P<0.05), as well as between treatment group

关 键 词：针刺 推拿 神经根型颈椎病 通络理筋 

分 类 号：H31[语言文字—英语] R71[医药卫生—妇产科学]