体外冲击波疗法与针刀疗法治疗肱骨外上髁炎的疗效对比

发布时间：2018-05-30 08:21

本文选题：网球肘 + 体外冲击波疗法　；参考：《山西医科大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：目的:对比体外冲击波疗法和针刀疗法治疗“网球肘”的临床疗效。方法:选取100名“网球肘”患者,将他们采用随机数字表法随机平均分为两组,每组50名患者。I组:患者在山西医科大学第一医院骨科门诊接受体外冲击波疗法,根据治疗情况,治疗2-3次作为一个疗程的治疗;II组:患者在山西医科大学第一医院骨科门诊接受针刀疗法,根据治疗情况,治疗1-2次作为一个疗程的治疗。一个疗程过后,参照Verhaar网球肘疗效评分标准对总体疗效进行评价对比,并密切观察两组治疗过程中的不良反应。结果:患者在接受一个疗程的治疗过后,I组采用体外冲击波疗法的患者总体疗效为:优30例,良15例,可4例,差1例,优良率90%,治疗过程中患者没有出现任何不良反应;II组采用针刀疗法治疗的患者总体疗效为:优25例,良10例,可9例,差6例,优良率70%,其中少数患者出现治疗后肱骨外上髁处进针点周围的皮肤局部红肿,疼痛。结论:两种疗法分别治疗“网球肘”后,I组采用是体外冲击波疗法取得了90%的优良率,II组采用是针刀疗法取得了70%的优良率,证明两种方法均为有效的疗法,尚不能证明体外冲击波疗法疗效优于针刀疗法。此外,治疗后少数接受针刀疗法的患者出现局部红肿,疼痛等不良反应,而接受体外冲击波疗法治疗后的患者无任何不良反应,患者治疗过程感受较好。
[Abstract]:Objective: To compare the clinical effect of extracorporeal shock wave therapy and needle knife therapy in the treatment of "tennis elbow". Methods: 100 "tennis elbow" patients were selected and divided into two groups randomly, with 50 patients in each group.I group: patients received extracorporeal shock wave therapy in the Department of orthopedics of the First Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, according to the treatment. Situation, treatment 2-3 times as a course of treatment; group II: patients in the Department of orthopedics at the first hospital of Shanxi Medical University received acupotomy, according to the treatment situation, treatment 1-2 times as a course of treatment. After a course of treatment, the overall effect was evaluated and compared according to the Verhaar tennis elbow effect score standard, and the two groups of treatment were closely observed. Results: after receiving a course of treatment, the overall curative effect of patients in group I with extracorporeal shock wave therapy was excellent in 30 cases, good in 15 cases, in 4 cases, in 1 cases, and in the good rate of 90%. The patients had no adverse reaction in the course of treatment, and the overall effect of the II group with needle knife therapy was excellent in 25 cases, good and good. 10 cases, 9 cases, poor 6 cases, the excellent rate of 70%, of which a few patients appeared after the treatment of the humerus epicondyle of the skin surrounding the skin local redness and swelling, pain. Conclusion: after the two treatment of "tennis elbow", the I group adopted the extracorporeal shock wave therapy to obtain a good rate of 90%, the II group used Acupotomy to obtain 70% good rate, proving two All the methods are effective and can not prove that the effect of extracorporeal shock wave therapy is better than that of acupotomy. In addition, a few patients receiving acupotomy therapy have some adverse reactions such as local redness and pain, but the patients receiving extracorporeal shock wave therapy have no adverse reactions, and the patients feel better in the treatment process.
【学位授予单位】：山西医科大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：R687.4

【参考文献】