机构地区:[1]常州市中医医院颈腰痛中心,江苏常州213003 [2]常州市德安医院康复中心,江苏常州213004
出 处:《常州实用医学》2020年第2期83-88,共6页CHANGZHOU PRACTICAL MEDICINE
摘 要:目的分析高能激光联合核心稳定训练治疗非特异性下背痛的效果。方法将42例非特异性下背痛(non-specific low back pain,NLBP)患者随机分为核心稳定训练组(对照组)和高能激光(High-intensity laser therapy,HILT)联合核心稳定训练(试验组),每组21例。两组均采用常规个体化康复治疗,对照组加用核心稳定训练进行治疗,试验组给予HILT联合核心稳定训练进行治疗,疗程4周。治疗4周后评估两组治疗前后视觉模拟评分量表(visual analogues cale,VAS)、Oswestry功能障碍指数(Os-westry disability index,ODI)、日本骨科学会(Japanese orthopedic association,JOA)腰痛评分、SF-36生活质量评价量表(36-item short form,SF-36).结果治疗4周后,VAS评分对照组和试验组均明显低于治疗前,差异具有统计意义(<0.01),且试验组较对照组降低更为明显,差异具有统计意义(P<0.05);ODI指数对照组和试验组均明显低于治疗前,差异具有统计意义(P<0.01),且试验组较对照组降低更为明显,差异具有统计意义(P<0.01);JOA评分对照组和试验组均明显高于治疗前,差异具有统计意义(P<0.01),且试验组较对照组提高更为明显,差异具有统计意义(P<0.05);SF-36评分对照组和试验组均明显高于治疗前,差异具有统计意义(P<0.01),且试验组较对照组提高更为明显,差异具有统计意义(P<0.05).结论HILT联合核心稳定训练在改善非特异性下背痛患者的疼痛、功能障碍以及生活质量等方面要优于单纯的核心稳定训练。Objective To analyze the effect of high energy laser combined with core stabilization training on nonspecific lower back pain.Methods 42 patients with non—specific low back pain(NLBP)were randomly divided into core stability training group(control group)and high—intensity laser therapy(HILT)combined with core stability training(test group),with 21 patients in each group.Both groups received conventional individualized rehabilitation therapy,the control group was treated with core stability training,and the expenmental group was treated with HILT combined with core stability training for 4 weeks.Visual analogues cale(VAS),Oswestry disability index(ODI),Japanese orthopedic association(JOA)low back pain score,and s〜36 quality of life scale(sf—36)were assessed between the two groups after 4 weeks of treatment.Results After 4 weeks of treatment,VAS scores in the control group and the experimental group were significantly lower than those before treatment,and the difference was statistically significant(<0.01).Moreover,VAS scores in the experimental group were significantly lower than those in the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).The ODI index of both the control group and the experimental group was significantly lower than that before treatment,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.01).Moreover,the decrease was more significant in the experimental group than in the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.01).JOA scores in the control group and the experimental group were significandy higher than those before treatment,and the difierence was statistically significant(P<0.01),and the improvement in the experimental group was more significant than that in the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).The score of sf—36 in both the control group and the experimental group was significantly higher than that before treatment,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.01).Moreover,the score of sf�
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...