能量平衡疗法调治躯体疼痛性亚健康的临床观察

发布时间：2018-06-20 22:45

本文选题：能量平衡疗法 + 推拿　；参考：《湖南中医药大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：目的：观察能量平衡疗法调治躯体疼痛性亚健康的临床疗效,为临床调治躯体疼痛性亚健康提供一种新的思路和方法。方法：将90例亚健康人随机分为治疗组与常规推拿组(常规推拿组)和中频治疗组(中频理疗组),每组30例。能量平衡组和对照组每次调治时间均为45分钟,调治一次间隔两天,一个疗程为五天,共15天。结果： 1.在疼痛视觉模拟评分比较中：①三组治疗前视觉疼痛模拟评分无显著性差异(P0.05)。②各组治疗前后视觉疼痛模拟评分差异极显著(P0.01),提示治疗后躯体疼痛性亚健康人群的疼痛强度均明显降低。③能量平衡疗法组与常规推拿组、中频治疗组相比,治疗后的视觉疼痛模拟评分具有显著性差异(P0.01),提示能量平衡疗法组手法在改善躯体疼痛性业健康人群的疼痛症状上优于常规推拿组与单纯的中频理疗。 2.在SF-36(躯体部分)前后分值比较中：①三组治疗前SF-36(躯体部分)评分无显著性差异(P0.05)。②各组治疗前后SF-36(躯体部分)评分差异极显著(P0.01),提示治疗后躯体疼痛性亚健康人群的健康状况均明显好转。③能量平衡疗法组与常规推拿组、中频治疗组相比,治疗后的SF-36(躯体部分)评分具有显著性差异(P0.01),提示能量平衡疗法组手法在改善躯体疼痛性亚健康人群的健康状况上优于常规推拿组与单纯的中频理疗。 3.在有效率方面,与中频治疗组比较,其余两组显著增高,差异有统计学意义(P0.01)；与常规推拿组比较,能量平衡组有效率明显升高,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论： 1.能量平衡疗法能够有效的改善躯体疼痛性亚健康的症状。 2.在缓解疼痛症状方面,能量平衡疗法优于常规推拿和中频治疗。 3.在改善健康状况方面,能量平衡疗法要优于常规推拿和中频治疗。
[Abstract]:Objective: to observe the clinical efficacy of energy balance therapy in the treatment of subhealth of somatic pain, and to provide a new idea and method for the treatment of subhealth of somatic pain. Methods: 90 cases of subhealthy people were randomly divided into treatment group, routine massage group and medium frequency treatment group, 30 cases in each group. In the energy balance group and the control group, the adjusting time was 45 minutes, the interval was two days, the course of treatment was five days, a total of 15 days. Results: 1. In the comparison of visual analogue scores of pain, there was no significant difference in visual pain simulation scores before and after treatment among the three groups (P0.052.The difference of visual pain analogue scores before and after treatment was extremely significant (P0.01), indicating that the subhealthy population with somatic pain after treatment had no significant difference. The pain intensity was significantly decreased in the energy balance therapy group and the conventional massage group. Compared with the intermediate frequency treatment group, There was significant difference in visual pain simulation scores after treatment (P 0.01), which suggested that the manipulation of energy balance therapy group was superior to the conventional massage group and the simple medium frequency physiotherapy group in improving the pain symptoms of the healthy population with somatic pain. 2. There was no significant difference in the score of SF-36 (body part) between the three groups before and after treatment. There was no significant difference in the score of SF-36 (body part) before and after treatment. The scores of SF-36 (body part) in each group were significantly different before and after treatment, indicating that the body pain was subhealthy after treatment. The health status of the population was obviously improved. 3. The energy balance therapy group and the routine massage group. Compared with the intermediate frequency treatment group, The scores of SF-36 (body part) after treatment were significantly different (P 0.01), suggesting that the treatment group was superior to the conventional massage group and the simple medium frequency physiotherapy group in improving the health status of the subhealthy population with somatic pain. 3. In the effective rate, the other two groups were significantly higher than those in the medium frequency treatment group, the difference was statistically significant (P 0.01), and that in the energy balance group was significantly higher than that in the conventional massage group, and the difference was statistically significant (P 0.05). Conclusion: 1. Energy balance therapy can effectively improve physical pain subhealth symptoms. 2. In the relief of pain symptoms, energy balance therapy is superior to conventional massage and if treatment. 3. In improving health, energy balance therapy is superior to conventional massage and intermediate frequency therapy.
【学位授予单位】：湖南中医药大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：R749.7

【参考文献】