机构地区:[1]郑州颐和医院关节与运动医学外科,河南郑州450047
出 处:《新乡医学院学报》2021年第9期880-883,共4页Journal of Xinxiang Medical University
摘 要:目的比较放散式冲击波与局部药物注射治疗慢性足底筋膜炎的临床疗效。方法选择2018年1月至2019年6月郑州颐和医院收治的65例慢性足底筋膜炎患者为研究对象,按照治疗方法将患者分为观察组(n=35)和对照组(n=30)。2组患者均给予穿平底鞋、减少负重及主动锻炼等常规干预措施,对照组患者在常规干预措施基础上给予醋酸曲安奈德和盐酸利多卡因局部注射治疗,每周1次,共治疗2次;观察组患者在常规干预措施基础上给予放散式冲击波治疗,每周1次,共治疗4次。对2组患者治疗前及治疗后第8、15、22、90天的足踝部疼痛的视觉模拟评分(VAS)和足踝功能的美国足踝外科学会(AOFAS)评分进行比较,治疗后第90天评估2组患者临床疗效。结果治疗前2组患者VAS评分比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),2组患者治疗后第8、15、22、90天VAS评分均显著低于治疗前(P<0.05);治疗后第8天观察组患者VAS评分显著高于对照组(P<0.05);治疗后第22、90天观察组患者VAS评分显著低于对照组(P<0.05)。治疗前2组患者AOFAS评分比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),2组患者治疗后第8、15、22、90天AOFAS评分均显著高于治疗前(P<0.05);治疗后第8天观察组患者AOFAS评分显著低于对照组(P<0.05);2组患者治疗后第15天AOFAS评分比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);治疗后第22、90天观察组患者AOFAS评分显著高于对照组(P<0.05)。观察组和对照组患者治疗总有效率分别为94.29%(33/35)、76.67%(23/30),观察组患者治疗总有效率显著高于对照组(χ^(2)=4.204,P<0.05)。结论放散式冲击波治疗慢性足底筋膜炎的近期疗效弱于局部药物注射治疗,但远期疗效优于局部药物注射治疗,其可有效缓解慢性足底筋膜炎患者的疼痛症状,改善足踝功能。Objective To compare the clinical effect of radial shock wave and local drug injection in the treatment of chronic plantar fasciitis.Methods Sixty-five patients with chronic plantar fasciitis treated in Zhengzhou Yihe Hospital from January 2018 to June 2019 were selected as the research subjects,and the patients were divided into observation group(n=35)and control group(n=30)according to the treatment method.The patients in the both groups were given routine intervention measures such as wearing flat shoes,reducing weight-bearing and active exercise.On the basis of routine intervention measures,the patients in the control group were treated with local injection of triamcinolone acetonide acetate and lidocaine hydrochloride once a week for a total of two times,while the patients in the observation group were treated with radial shock wave once a week for a total of four times.The visual analogue scale(VAS)of foot and ankle pain and the American Society of Foot and Ankle Surgery(AOFAS)score of foot and ankle function were compared between the two groups before treatment and on the 8 th,15 th,22 nd and 90 th days after treatment.The clinical efficacy of the patients in the two groups was evaluated on the 90 th day after treatment.Results There was no significant difference in the VAS score between the two groups before treatment(P>0.05).The VAS score on the 8 th,15 th,22 nd and 90 th days after treatment was significantly lower than that before treatment in the two groups(P<0.05).The VAS score in the observation group was significantly higher than that in the control group on the 8 th day after treatment(P<0.05).The VAS score in the observation group was significantly lower than that in the control group on the 22 nd and 90 th days after treatment(P<0.05).There was no significant difference in AOFAS score between the two groups before treatment(P>0.05).The AOFAS score on the 8 th,15 th,22 nd and 90 th days after treatment were significantly higher than that before treatment in the two groups(P<0.05).The AOFAS score
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...