机构地区:[1]河北以岭医院风湿免疫科,河北石家庄050091 [2]河北以岭医院放射科,河北石家庄050091
出 处:《四川中医》2017年第3期124-127,共4页Journal of Sichuan of Traditional Chinese Medicine
摘 要:目的:观察针灸联合桂枝芍药知母汤及中药熏蒸治疗类风湿性关节炎的临床效果。方法:将我院2015年5月~2016年3月收治的170例类风湿性关节炎患者纳入本次实验研究,采取随机数字表法进行分组研究,对照组患者(85例)予以常规临床西医治疗,研究组患者(85例)则采取中医方案(针灸联合桂枝芍药知母汤及中药熏蒸)治疗,观察两组治疗后疗效、药物不良反应情况、治疗前后两组患者临床指标(关节肿胀指数及压痛指数、功能障碍指数、晨僵时间、休息痛、20m步行时间)及实验室指标(血沉、类风湿因子、C反应蛋白),并采取健康状况评定量表(HAQ)评估患者健康状态,视觉模拟量表(VAS)及匹茨堡睡眠质量指数量表(PSQI)分别评估患者关节疼痛情况及睡眠质量。结果:1研究组患者治疗总有效率为97.65%,高于对照组89.41%,P<0.05;2研究组药物不良反应率为1.18%,低于对照组8.24%,P<0.05;3两组患者治疗前临床指标及实验室指标均相当,P>0.05;治疗后研究组患者临床指标及实验室指标均优于对照组,P<0.05;4治疗前两组患者HAQ、VAS、PSQI量表评分均相当,P>0.05;治疗后研究组患者HAQ、VAS、PSQI量表评分均优于对照组,P<0.05,差异具有统计学意义。结论:针灸联合桂枝芍药知母汤及中药熏蒸治疗类风湿性关节炎疗效佳,不良反应少,安全性高,患者临床指标及实验组指标、关节疼痛、睡眠及健康状态均改善,具有较高临床应用及推广价值。Objective : To explore the the clinical effect of using acupuncture combined Guizhi Shaoyao Zhimu Decoction and Chinese medicine fumigation in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Methods: 170 cases of patients with rheumatoid arthritis were selected from May 2015 to March 2016 of our hospital, they were divided into study group and controlled group adopting a random number table method, each group had 85 cases. The patients in the controlled group were accepted routine clinical, west- ern medicine treatment ; the patients in the study group were accepted traditional Chinese medicine ( acupuncture combined Guizhi Shaoyao Zhimu Decoction and traditional Chinese medicine fumigation treatment, observing the curative effect of the two groups after treatment, the situation of adverse drug reactions, two groups of patients before and after the treatment of clinical indicators ( joint swelling and tenderness index, the index of dysfunction, morning stiffness time, rest pain, 20m walk) and laboratory inde- xes, blood sedimentation, rheumatoid factor and c-reactive protein), and health assessment questionnaire (HAQ) to assess pa- tients health, visual analog scale (VAS) and Pittsburgh sleep quality index scale (PSQI), respectively, to assess patients with joint pain and sleep quality. Results: (1) The total effective rate of the study group was 97.65% , it was higher than the con- trolled group which was 89. 41%, P 〈 0.05; (2) The team adverse drug reaction rate was 1.18% , it was lower than the con- trolled group which was 8.24% , P 〈 0.05 ; (3) In the two groups before treatment in patients with clinical indexes and laboratorY indexes, P 〉 0. 05 ; the study group after treatment in patients with clinical and laboratory indicators were superior to the con- trolled group, P 〈 0. 05 ; (4) HAQ, VAS, PSQI scale scores of the wo groups of patients before treatment were quite, P 〉 0. 05 ; HAQ, VAS, PSQI scale scoresof the study group after treatment were better than the con
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...