温针灸与电针治疗肩关节周围炎疗效比较  

Therapeutic Comparative Study between Warm Needling Therapy and Electroacupuncture for Periarthritis of Shoulder

作　　者：叶玲[1] 李国灿[1] 

机构地区：[1]杭州市萧山区第一人民医院,杭州311200

出　　处：《上海针灸杂志》2013年第4期306-307,共2页Shanghai Journal of Acupuncture and Moxibustion

摘　　要：目的比较温针灸与电针治疗肩关节周围炎的疗效。方法温针灸组91例,电针组82例,两组患者取穴相同,均以肩髃、肩髎、肩贞、曲池、外关、阿是穴为主穴,观察治疗2个疗程及3个疗程后的治愈率。结果 2个疗程后,温针灸组治愈率为79.1%,电针组治愈率为64.6%,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);3个疗程后,温针灸组治愈率为91.2%,电针组治愈率为81.7%,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论温针灸法与电针法治疗肩周炎均有较好疗效,但前者较后者的早期治愈率高。Objective To compare the therapeutic efficacy between warm needling therapy and electroacupuncture in treating periarthritis of shoulder. Method Warm needling group （n=91） and electroacupuncture group （n=82） were treated by selecting the same acupoints, i.e. Jianyu （LI15）, Jianliao （TEl4）, Jianzhen （SI9）, Quchi （LI11）, Waiguan （TE5）, and Ashi points were selected as the major points. Recovery rate was evaluated respectively after 2 treatment courses and 3 treatment courses. Result After 2 treatment courses, the recovery rate was 79.1% in warm needling group versus 64.6% in electroacupuncture group, and the difference was statistically significant （P〈0.05）; after 3 treatment courses, the recovery rate was 91.2% in warm needling group versus 81.7% in electroaeupuncture group, and the difference was statistically insignificant （P〉0.05）. Conclusion Both warm needling and electroacupuncture can achieve satisfactory therapeutic efficacy in treating periarthritis of shoulder, while the former has a higher early-stage recovery rate compared to the latter.

关 键 词：肩凝症 温针疗法 电针 肩关节周围炎 

分 类 号：R246.2[医药卫生—针灸推拿学]