镜像疗法治疗面肌痉挛40例疗效观察  

Clinical observation of efficacy of mirror therapy in the treatment of 40 patients with hemifacial spasm

作　　者：沈海涛 李小亮 赵旭 SHEN Haitao;LI Xiaoliang;ZHAO Xu(Department of Neurosurgery,North China University of Science and Technology Affiliated Hospital,Tangshan,Hebei 063000,China)

机构地区：[1]华北理工大学附属医院神经外科,河北唐山063000

出　　处：《安徽医药》2021年第6期1212-1215,共4页Anhui Medical and Pharmaceutical Journal

摘　　要：目的观察镜像疗法治疗面肌痉挛的临床疗效。方法将2015年11月至2017年5月就诊于华北理工大学附属医院80例面肌痉挛病人使用随机数字表法分为两组,每组40例,分别进行镜像视觉反馈疗法(治疗组)和口服卡马西平治疗(对照组),共治疗20 d,治疗结束后6个月回访。分别采用Cohen评分评估痉挛严重程度,汉密尔顿焦虑量表17项(HAMA)、贝克抑郁自评量表13项(BDI)评分评估焦虑和抑郁程度来评估治疗前、治疗后和治疗后6个月的临床疗效,并比较治疗组和对照组之间的疗效。结果治疗组与对照组的完全缓解/缓解/无效/加重例数分别为12/15/10/3与15/14/9/2,疗效比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。治疗组病人治疗前与治疗后Cohen评分的差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),与治疗后6个月的差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),治疗后与治疗后6个月的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);对照组病人治疗前与治疗后Cohen评分的差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),与治疗后6个月差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组病人Cohen痉挛程度评分短期疗效差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),长期疗效治疗组优于对照组(0分/1分/2分/3分/4分例数:11/10/10/8/1比5/16/10/5/4,P<0.05)。两组病人组内比较治疗前后HAMA和BDI量表评分均差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),两组病人组间比较HAMA和BDI量表评分亦差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论镜像疗法缓解面肌痉挛痉挛症状有一定的临床疗效,短期效果和口服卡马西平相似,长期效果优于卡马西平,但两种疗法均未能改善焦虑与抑郁症状。Objective To observe the clinical effects of mirror therapy on Hemifacial spasm(HFS).Methods Eighty patients with HFS in North China University of Technology Affiliated Hospital from November 2015 to May 2017 were randomly assigned into 2 groups.Each group has 40 patients.Treatment group was treated with mirror therapy,and control group was treated with carbamazepine,a total of 20 days of treatment,and a follow-up visit 6 months after the end of treatment.C.ohen’s spasm evaluation scale,HAMA(Hamilton Anxiety Scale-17 items),and BDI(Beck Depression Inventory-13 items)were used to assess the degree of spasm,anxiety,and depression to evaluate the clinical effects before treatment,after treatment and 6-month follow-up.The effects between the treatment group and the control group were compared and analyzed.Results The number of complete remission,remission,ineffective and aggravated cases in the treatment group and the control group were(12,15,10,3)and(15,14,9,2),respectively,and the difference in efficacy was not statistically significant(P>0.05).In the treatment group,the difference of C.ohen scores before and after treatment was statistically significant(P<0.05),the difference of Cohen scores in the treatment group before treatment and 6-month follow-up was statistically significant(P<0.05),and there was no significant difference in Cohen scale before treatment and 6-month follow-up(P>0.05).In the control group,there was a significant difference in Cohen scale before and after treatment(P<0.05),and there was no significant difference in Cohen scale before treatment and 6-month follow-up(P<0.05).There was no significant difference in the short-term efficacy of the Cohen spasticity score between the two groups(P>0.05),and the long-term efficacy treatment group was better than the control group[(0,1,2,3 points:11,10,10,8,1)vs.(0,1,2,3 points:5,16,10,5,4),P<0.05].There was no significant difference in HAMA scale and in BDI before and after the treatment by intro-group comparison(P>0.05).There was no significant diffe

关 键 词：面部单侧痉挛 镜像疗法 Cohen痉挛程度评分 卡马西平 视觉反馈 

分 类 号：R746[医药卫生—神经病学与精神病学]