机构地区:[1]上海中医药大学附属上海中医医院,上海200071 [2]上海交通大学附属第六人民医院,上海200233
出 处:《四川中医》2017年第4期185-188,共4页Journal of Sichuan of Traditional Chinese Medicine
摘 要:目的:观察背俞穴刺络拔罐加中药倒膜治疗肺胃湿热型寻常性痤疮的临床疗效。方法:本研究采用两组对照法,纳入符合诊断标准的肺胃湿热型寻常性痤疮患者60例,分为对照组30例,治疗组30例。对照组采用中药倒膜法,治疗组采用背俞穴刺络拔罐法加中药倒膜法。中药倒膜法,其主要成分为复方黄柏霜,每周1次,3周为1个疗程。刺络拔罐法,取穴大椎、肺俞(单)、脾俞(单)、膈俞(单),进行刺络拔罐,每周两次,3周为1个疗程,一周中除大椎以外,其余穴位两侧交替使用。初诊及疗程结束后,详细记录Pillsbury四级分级法表、皮损症状评分表;要求患者填写痤疮特异性生活量表(Qol-Acne)。疗程结束后统计分析疗效与不良反应。结果:1疗效:治疗后两组皮损均有显著消退(P<0.05)。对照组,治愈率10%,总有效率83.3%;治疗组,治愈率36.67%,总有效率93.33%。治疗组与对照组相比,疗效有显著差异(P<0.05)。2皮损程度分布:治疗前两组多停留在Ⅱ、Ⅲ级,治疗后两组多分布于Ⅰ、Ⅱ级;组间比较则可以明显发现,治疗组相较于对照组有显著差异(P<0.05),多停留在Ⅰ级。3皮损改善:治疗后两组皮损均有明显改善。治疗组较对照组更明显(P<0.05)。4Qol-Acne量表,治疗后两组评分均有上升,且具有统计学意义。组间比较,在自我感知、社会功能两项中,治疗组较对照组更为明显(P<0.05),在情感功能方面则无明显差异。结论:中药倒膜法叠加背俞穴刺络拔罐法,能有效提高肺胃湿热型寻常性痤疮的治愈率,并更好的提高患者的生活质量状况。Objective: To observe the effectiveness of letting puncture and cupping the back points and using traditional Chi- nese medicine inverted membrane for treating ache vulgaris. Methods: The research included 60 cases of acne vnlgaris patients, diagnosed by both TCM and western medicine, with two groups ( each group had 30 cases) contrasted. The controlled group used medicinal pourmask treatment and the treatment group used letting puncture and cupping the back points and using traditional Chi- nese medicine inverted membrane. The herbs in medicinal pourmask treatment were compound Huangbai Cream. The term of treatment was once a week, and three weeks as one period of treatment. The Acupuncture points including Dazhui, Feishu ( sin- gle), Weishu (single), and Geshu (single) were chosen to be skin needled with cupping. The term of treatment was twice a week, and three weeks as one period of treatment. Except Dazhui, others points use each single in the same week. Before and af- ter treatment," we wrote down the Pillsbury Table and Lesions Changing Table in order to lmow about the decreasing rate of le- sions. We also made patients to fill out the Acne Quality of Life ( QoL-Acne). Moreover, we should know the treatment effective- ness and side effects about the controlled group and the treatment group. Results: ①Effectiveness : After treatment the decreasing rate of lesions in both two groups were enlightens (P 〈 0. 05). The controlled group, effectiverate was 10%, while whole effec-ive rate was 83. 3% ; The treatment group, effective rate was 36. 67%, while whole effective rate was 93. 33%. Compated the controlled group with the treatment group, the treatment group was more effective (P 〈 0. 05). ②Lesions level: Before the treatment, the two groups were level 2 or level 3, while after the treatment, the controlled group was level 2 and the treatment group was level 1. ③Lesions changing: After treatment, both two group were changing (P 〈 0. 05). Compared the co
分 类 号:R246.7[医药卫生—针灸推拿学]
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...