回医理筋疗法治疗腰椎间盘突出症临床疗效研究

发布时间：2018-03-09 20:47

本文选题：回医理筋疗法　切入点：腰椎间盘突出症　出处：《宁夏医科大学》2016年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：目的观察回医理筋疗法对腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效。方法按照随机、对照、单盲的临床试验设计,选取腰椎间盘突出症患者200例,随机分为试验组和对照组,各100例。试验组采取回医理筋疗法治疗,对照组采取传统中医推拿治疗,在治疗前、后及治疗后2月分别采用临床症状计分、临床体征计分、生活质量计分、VAS疼痛计分、治疗后临床疗效等进行评价,并进行安全性评价。结果1.临床症状、临床体征、生活质量的评价结果(1)组内比较:组内与治疗前比较,治疗一个疗程及治疗后两个月后,试验组与对照组在临床症状、临床体征、生活质量等计分比较均有显著性差异(P0.05)。治疗后与治疗后两个月后比较,试验组在临床症状、临床体征、生活质量等计分均有显著性差异(P0.05),对照组上述计分无差异(P0.05)。(2)组间比较:上述各项计分治疗前、治疗后的组间比较,均无显著性差异(P0.05)。但治疗后2月评价结果分析,两组间具有显著差异性(P0.05)。2.VAS分值比较(1)组内比较:组内与治疗前比较,治疗一个疗程及治疗后两个月后,试验组与对照组VAS计分比较均有显著性差异(P0.05);治疗后与治疗后两个月后比较,试验组VAS计分有显著性差异(P0.05),对照组VAS计分无差异(P0.05)。(2)组间比较:VAS计分治疗前两组间比较无显著性差异(P0.05)。但治疗后、治疗后2月评价结果分析,两组间均有显著差异性(P0.05)。3.总体疗效比较治疗结束后,经秩和检验比较,两组间疗效有差异(Z=2.15,P0.05),回医理筋疗法较传统推拿手法疗效更显著。4.安全性评价治疗结束后,经统计分析得出,两组间安全性评价无明显差异(P0.05),回医理筋疗法与传统推拿手法一样安全可行。结论回医理筋疗法治疗腰突症效果确切,在改善症状体征、提高生活质量、缓解疼痛、提高总体疗效等方面与传统推拿疗法疗效相近,但回医理筋疗法治疗腰突症的远期疗效比传统推拿疗法疗效更持久,更稳定,效果更佳。
[Abstract]:Objective to observe the clinical effect of Hui Yi Li Jin therapy on lumbar disc herniation. Methods 200 patients with lumbar disc herniation were randomly divided into experimental group and control group according to a randomized, controlled and single-blind clinical trial design. The experimental group was treated with traditional Chinese medicine massage therapy, and the control group was treated with traditional Chinese medicine massage therapy. Before, after and after treatment, the clinical symptom score, clinical signs score, quality of life score and VAS pain score were used respectively in the experimental group and in the control group. Results 1. The evaluation results of clinical symptoms, clinical signs and quality of life were compared within the group: compared with those before treatment, one course of treatment and two months after treatment, There were significant differences in the scores of clinical symptoms, clinical signs and quality of life between the trial group and the control group (P 0.05). After treatment and two months after treatment, the clinical symptoms, clinical signs and signs were compared between the experimental group and the control group. There were significant differences in scores of quality of life and quality of life between the two groups (P 0.05), but there was no significant difference between the control group (P 0.05) and control group (P 0.05): there was no significant difference between the two groups before and after treatment. However, the evaluation results of February after treatment were analyzed. There were significant differences between the two groups (P 0.05N. 2.VAS scores were compared in group 1): compared with before treatment, one course of treatment and two months after treatment, there were significant differences between the two groups. There was significant difference in VAS score between the test group and the control group (P 0.05), and the comparison between the treatment group and the control group after two months. There was no significant difference in VAS score between the two groups before treatment, but there was no significant difference between the two groups before treatment. However, after treatment, the evaluation results on February after treatment were analyzed, and there was no significant difference between the two groups in the score of VAS in the control group (P 0.05), and there was no significant difference in the score between the two groups before and after the treatment (P 0.05), and there was no significant difference between the two groups in the score of VAS in the control group. There was significant difference between the two groups (P0.050.3.After the end of the treatment, there was a difference between the two groups by rank sum test, the curative effect of the two groups was significantly higher than that of the traditional massage. 4. After the safety evaluation, the curative effect of the two groups was significantly higher than that of the traditional massage. Statistical analysis showed that there was no significant difference in safety evaluation between the two groups (P0.05A), and that the therapy of resuscitation was as safe and feasible as that of traditional massage. Conclusion it is effective in the treatment of lumbar protrusion, which can improve the symptoms and signs, improve the quality of life, and improve the quality of life. The effect of relieving pain and improving the overall curative effect was similar to that of the traditional massage therapy, but the long-term effect of the therapy was longer, more stable and better than that of the traditional massage therapy.
【学位授予单位】：宁夏医科大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：R29

【相似文献】