不同强度、不同频度电针对慢性痛大鼠镇痛作用的比较  

Comparison of Analgesic Effects of Electroacupuncture at Different Stimulating Intensities and Different Treatment Intervals

作　　者：刘俊岭[1] 陈淑萍[1] 高永辉[1] 孟凡颖[1] 

机构地区：[1]中国中医科学院针灸研究所,北京100700

出　　处：《针刺研究》2006年第5期280-285,共6页Acupuncture Research

基　　金：国家自然科学基金资助课题(30472241)

摘　　要：目的:对比不同强度、不同频度电针的镇痛效应。方法:健康雌性Wistar大鼠70只,随机分为模型组(n=10)、1 mA电针组(n=30)和5 mA电针组(n=30),后两组又各分为每天1次(1 t/d)、隔2日1次(1 t/3 d)和每周1次(1 t/w)组,每组各10例。于鼠右侧臀部分离坐骨神经后,在该神经分叉的近心端松松做4个结扎,造成慢性压迫性损伤(CCI)疼痛模型。手术后5 d开始用辐射热测痛仪的光源分别照射大鼠两侧足底部,测定大鼠双侧缩腿的潜伏期(paw withdrawal latency,PWL),用患-健侧PWL的差值作为疼痛反应的变化值。电针双侧“足三里-阳陵泉”,通电刺激30 min,频率为2/15 Hz,不同组的强度分别为1 mA和5 mA;3个电针组每天、每3 d和每周各电针1次。结果:①当用1 mA的刺激强度时,与模型对照组比,3个电针组从电针后第1天(第1次电针)起各组PWL的差值均明显减低(P<0.05);3个电针组之间比,1 t/3 d组和1 t/w组PWL的差值明显高于1 t/d组(P<0.05),说明3种频度的电针都有显著的镇痛作用,而1 t/d的镇痛效果最佳。②采用5 mA电针时,与模型组比,1 t/d组和1 t/w组第1次电针至第21天,PWL的差值也明显减低(P<0.05),说明较高强度的电针治疗,每天和每周各1次的治疗频度亦表现出有良好的镇痛效应;而1 t/3 d组和模型对照组比较没有明显差异(P>0.05)。③给予1 t/d和1 t/3 d电针治疗频度,1 mA和5 mA刺激强度的镇痛效应比较,前者PWL的差值降低明显较快(P<0.05),而每周1次两种强度电针的PWL差值无显著性差异(P>0.05)。说明在大鼠CCI模型上给予1 t/d和1 t/3 d的治疗频度时,低强度电针的镇痛效果显著优于高强度电针;每周1次治疗时,1 mA和5 mA的镇痛效果无明显差异。结论:在结扎坐骨神经造成CCI疼痛大鼠上,1)1 mA和5 mA两种强度的电针都有不同程度的镇痛作用,低强度电针的镇痛作用明显优于高强度电针;2)低强度电针时,每天1次、隔2日1次和每周1次等3种治疗频�Objective： To compare the analgesic effects of electroacupuncture （EA） at different stimulating intensities and different treatment intervals so as to explore a suitable set of therapeutic parameters for chronic pain. Methods： A total of 70 Wistar rats were randomized into model （n= 10）, 1 mA-EA （n=30） and 5 mA-EA （n=30） groups which of the later two groups were further divided into 1 time （t）/day （d）, 1 t/3 d and 1 t/week （w） EA subgroups, with 10 cases in each subgroup. Chronic constrictive injury （CCI） pain model was established by loosely ligating the sciatic nerve near the proximal side of the bifid site. Paw withdrawal latency （PWL） was detected once every other day by using radiant heat source to radiate the rat＇s bilateral hindpaws. The difference values between the affected limb and the healthy limb were used to judge changes of the pain threshold. EA （2/15 Hz, 1 mA, 5 mA） was respectively applied to bilateral ＂Zusanli＂ （ST 36）-＂Yanglingquan＂ （GB 34） for 30 min, once everyday, every 3 days and every week in different subgroups. Results： 1 ） When 1 mA stimulating current was used, in cornparison with model group, the mean difference values of PWL in 1 t/d-EA, 1 t/3 d-EA and 1 t/w-EA subgroups from the 1^st day to 21^st day after EA were significantly lower （P〈 0.05）; while comparison among the 3 EA subgroups shewed that the mean difference values of PWL in 1 t/3 d and 1 t/w subgroups were significantly higher than those of 1 t/d group （ P〈 0.05）, indicating that 1 t/d- EA, 1 t/3 d-EA and 1 t/w-EA at the lower intensity all had a marked analgesic effect and that of 1 t/d-EA was the best. In addition, the accumulative effect in 1 t/3 d and 1 t/w subgroups was apparent along with the increase of the therapeutic times. 2） When 5 mA stimulating current was used, compared with model group, the mean difference values of PWL in 1 t/d-EA subgroup and in 1 t/w-EA subgroup from the 1^st day to 21^st day were significantly lower （P〈0.

关 键 词：慢性痛 电针 针刺镇痛 刺激强度 治疗频度 

分 类 号：R245.97[医药卫生—针灸推拿学]