机构地区:[1]广州中医药大学第一附属医院重庆医院针灸科,重庆400700 [2]广州中医药大学第一附属医院重庆医院康复科,重庆400700
出 处:《保健医学研究与实践》2023年第9期85-90,共6页Health Medicine Research and Practice
基 金:广州中医药大学第一附属医院重庆医院科技基金项目(2021-5)。
摘 要:目的 观察平衡针联合疏密波电针治疗肝肾亏虚型腰椎间盘突出症(LDH)的临床疗效,以期为临床决策的制定提供参考。方法 选取2021年2月—2022年8月于我院针灸科、治未病科与康复科门诊,以及住院部诊治的60名肝肾亏虚型LDH患者作为研究对象。按照随机数字表,将患者随机均等归入观察组、对照组,每组30例。观察组患者采用平衡针联合疏密波电针治疗,对照组患者采用口服塞来昔布胶囊治疗。对比治疗前及治疗后2组患者的临床疗效、视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分、日本骨科协会(JOA)评分、中医各证候评分及总评分、血清中C反应蛋白(CRP)水平的变化情况,记录并及时对症处理2组患者的不良反应。结果 治疗后,观察组患者的临床疗效优于对照组(P<0.05),且观察组患者的总有效率(90.0%)也高于对照组(66.7%)(P<0.05)。治疗前,2组患者VAS评分比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);治疗后,2组患者VAS评分较治疗前均有所降低,且观察组降低幅度更明显,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。治疗前,2组患者JOA评分比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);治疗后,2组患者JOA评分较治疗前均有所提高,且观察组升高幅度更明显,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。治疗前,2组患者中医各证候评分与证候总评分比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);治疗后,2组患者中医证候评分与治疗前相比均有明显改善,且观察组改善效果更优,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。治疗前,2组患者血清CRP水平比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);治疗后,观察组患者的血清CRP水平明显降低(P<0.05),且低于同期对照组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。2组患者不良反应发生率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 将平衡针联合疏密波电针疗法用于肝肾亏虚型LDH的治疗,不仅能够使患者疼痛程度明显减轻,还可下调炎性因子表达,不良反应少,临床效果确切,可于临床进一步推Objective This study aimed to observe the therapeutic efficacy of balance acupuncture combined with dilatational wave electroacupuncture for liver and kidney deficiency type lumbar disc herniation(LDH)to provide evidence for the formulation of clinical decisions.Methods Sixty patients with liver and kidney deficiency type LDH who were treated in the Department of Acupuncture and Moxibustion,Department of Preventive Treatment of Diseases,and Department of Rehabilitation Medicine of our hospital from February 2021 to August 2022 were selected as the participants.The patients were randomly assigned to an observation group and a control group,with 30 cases in each group.The observation group received balance acupuncture combined with dilatational wave electroacupuncture and the control group oral celecoxib capsules.The therapeutic efficacy,Visual Analogue Scale(VAS)score,Japanese Orthopedic Association(JOA)score,traditional Chinese medicine syndrome scores and total scores,and changes in serum C-reactive protein(CRP)levels before and after treatment were compared between the two groups.Adverse reactions in the two groups were recorded and promptly treated.Results After treatment,the therapeutic efficacy of the observation group was superior to that of the control group(P<0.05).The overall response rate in the observation group was also significantly higher than that in the control group(90.0%vs.66.7%;P<0.05).Before treatment,no significant difference was observed in VAS scores between the two groups(P>0.05).After treatment,the VAS scores in both groups significantly decreased,and the decrease in the observation group was more significant(P<0.05).Before treatment,there was no significant difference in JOA scores between the two groups(P>0.05).After treatment,the JOA scores in both groups significantly increased,and the increase in the observation group was more significant(P<0.05).Before treatment,there was no significant difference in traditional Chinese medicine syndrome scores and total scores between the two group
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...