检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:许红艳[1] 于少杰[1] XU Hongyan;YU Shaojie(Jilin Central Hospital Pain Diagnosis and Treatment Center,Jilin Jilin,132011,China)
机构地区:[1]吉林市中心医院疼痛诊疗中心
出 处:《双足与保健》2019年第17期119-120,共2页Biped and Health
摘 要:目的评价不同治疗方案(体外冲击波、封闭)治疗足跟痛的疗效。方法选择该院疼痛科门诊2016年8月—2018年8月期间收治治疗的足跟痛患者(n=80),进行随机分组治疗,实验1组接受体外冲击波治疗,实验2组接受封闭治疗。对比实验1组、实验2组足跟痛患者治疗效果、满意度、不良反应以及疼痛评分改善情况。结果实验1组足跟痛患者治疗总有效率以及总满意度均高于实验2组,治疗后疼痛评分低于实验2组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。另外,2组足跟痛患者治疗后均无明显不良反应情况。结论给予足跟痛患者体外冲击波治疗整体效果明显优于封闭治疗,在改善患者疼痛感方面效果显著,且安全性高。Objective To evaluate the efficacy of different therapeutic schemes(extracorporeal shock wave, blocking) in the treatment of heel pain. Methods The patients with heel pain(n=80) who were treated in our pain clinic from August2016 to August 2018 were randomly divided into two groups. The experimental group 1 received extracorporeal shock wave therapy and the experimental group 2 received blocking therapy. The therapeutic effect, satisfaction, adverse reactions and improvement of pain scores of patients with heel pain in experimental group 1 and 2 were compared. Results The total effective rate and satisfaction of heel pain patients in experimental group 1 were higher than those in experimental group 2, and the pain score after treatment was lower than that in experimental group 2, the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). In addition, there were no significant adverse reactions in both groups after treatment. Conclusion Extracorporeal shock wave therapy for heel pain is superior to blocking therapy in overall effect, and has significant effect in improving pain sensation of patients with high safety.
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...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:3.148.219.214