电针配合刺血治疗贝尔氏麻痹恢复期的临床研究

发布时间：2018-03-31 20:03

  本文选题：贝尔氏麻痹　切入点：恢复期　出处：《云南中医学院》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：目的:此研究旨在通过对治疗组(针刺配合电针、刺血疗法)、对照组(针刺配合电针)在贝尔氏麻痹恢复期淤血阻络证的治疗效果进行观察对比,为贝尔氏麻痹恢复期临床治疗方案的优化提供参考。方法:将符合标准的70例贝尔麻痹患者运用随机数字分组法分治疗组和对照组,每组均为35例。治疗组:针刺加电针、刺血疗法;对照组:针刺加电针。两组均分别收治日、1个疗程、2个疗程、3个疗程时根据面部评分及H-B分级分别进行疗效观察评定比较,统计后通过SPSSS21.0进行数据分析。结果:1.治疗前对符合纳入标准的两组患者在性别、年龄、病程、面部评分、H-B分级上的进行统计学分析,无显著差异(P0.05),具有可比性。2.治疗一个疗程后的结果分析:(1)治疗组与对照组在面部评分上分别与治疗前进行组内比较,有显著性差异(P0.01)。提示两种治疗方案均有效。(2)治疗组与对照组组间面部评分的组间比较,无显著差异(P0.05),提示一个疗程的治疗结束后,两个组的治疗方法在面部评分改善情况上无明显差异。(3)治疗组与对照组H-B分级的组间比较,无显著差异(P0.05),提示一个疗程的治疗结束后,两个组的治疗方法在H-B分级改善情况上无明显的差异。(4)治疗组与对照组疗效上的组间比较,无显著差异(P0.05),提示一个疗程的治疗结束后,两个组的治疗方法在疗效上无明显的差异。3.治疗两个疗程后的结果分析:(1)治疗组与对照组面部评分的组间比较,有显著差异(P0.05),提示两个疗程的治疗结束后,治疗组的治疗方法在面部评分改善情况上优于对照组。(2)治疗组与对照组H-B分级的组间比较,有显著差异(P0.05),提示两个疗程的治疗结束后,治疗组的治疗方法在H-B分级改善情况上优于对照组。(3)治疗组与对照组疗效的组间比较,有显著差异(P0.05),提示两个疗程的治疗结束后,治疗组治疗方法在疗效上优于对照组。4.治疗三个疗程后的结果分析:(1)治疗组与对照组面部评分的组间比较,有显著差异(P0.05),提示三个疗程的治疗结束后,治疗组的治疗方法在面部评分改善情况上优于对照组。(2)治疗组与对照组H-B分级的组间比较,有显著差异(P0.05),提示三个疗程的治疗结束后,治疗组的治疗方法在H-B分级改善情况上优于对照组。(3)治疗组和对照组疗效的组间比较,治疗组:治愈14例,显效15例,有效1例,治愈率为46.667%,愈显率为96.667%,有效率为100%;对照组:治愈8例,显效16例,有效6例,无效1例,治愈率为25.806%,愈显率为77.419%,有效率为96.774%。两组在疗效上的比较,有显著差异(P0.05),提示三个疗程治疗结束后,治疗组的方法在疗效上优于对照组。结论:1.治疗组(针刺配合电针、刺血疗法)与对照组(针刺配合电针)对于贝尔麻痹恢复期淤血阻络证的治疗均有显著疗效。2.治疗组的方法治疗贝尔氏麻痹恢复期瘀血阻络证的疗效比对照组更有优势,是一种较好的贝尔氏麻痹恢复期淤血阻络证的治疗方法,对贝尔氏麻痹恢复期的治疗有积极作用。
[Abstract]:Objective: This study aims to the treatment group (acupuncture combined with electro acupuncture and pricking blood therapy) and control group (acupuncture and electroacupuncture) recovery extravasated blood blocking collaterals in Bell's palsy treatment effects were observed and compared, to provide a reference for the clinical treatment of Bell's palsy recovery optimization scheme. Methods: the 70 cases of Baer using the random number table method paralysis patients were divided into treatment group and control group, each group had 35 cases. The treatment group: Acupuncture plus Electroacupuncture, bloodletting therapy; control group: electroacupuncture. Two groups were treated, 1 courses, 2 courses, 3 courses according to the facial and H-B scores respectively. Comparison of efficacy assessment, statistical data were analyzed by SPSSS21.0. Results: 1. before treatment to two groups of patients met the inclusion criteria in gender, age, disease duration, facial score, statistics on the H-B classification analysis, no significant difference (P0.05) That is comparable to that of.2. after a course of treatment results: (1) the treatment group and the control group in the face score before treatment group were compared, there was significant difference (P0.01). Two kinds of treatment that are effective. (2) the treatment group compared with the control group face the score between the groups, no significant difference (P0.05), suggesting that the end of treatment after a course of treatment, the two groups had no significant difference in score improvement on the face. (3) the treatment group compared with the control group of H-B grade group, no significant difference (P0.05), the end tip of a treatment after the course of treatment, two groups of treatment in H-B grade improved no obvious difference between the situation. (4) the treatment group and the control group the curative effect between the two groups, no significant difference (P0.05), suggesting that the end of treatment after a course of treatment, the two groups had no significant difference.3. two course of treatment in the curative effect after The results of the analysis: (1) the treatment group and the control group face score between the two groups, there was significant difference (P0.05), the end tip treatment after two courses of treatment, the treatment group was better than the control group in the face. (2) the treatment group compared with the control group of H-B grade group, there were significant differences (P0.05), the end tip treatment after two courses of treatment, treatment group improved better than the control group in the classification of H-B. (3) the treatment group compared with the control group curative effect between the groups, there was significant difference (P0.05), suggesting that treatment of two courses after the end of treatment. The effect of treatment group than the control group.4. after three cycles of treatment and analysis results: (1) the treatment group and the control group face score between the two groups, there was significant difference (P0.05), the end tip treatment after three courses of treatment, the treatment group was better than the control group in the face .(2)娌荤枟缁勪笌瀵圭収缁凥-B鍒嗙骇鐨勭粍闂存瘮杈，

本文编号：1692240