邵氏“五针法”为主治疗过敏性鼻炎—哮喘综合征的临床研究

发布时间：2018-05-01 10:13

本文选题：过敏性鼻炎-哮喘综合征 + 邵氏“五针法”　；参考：《河南中医药大学》2016年硕士论文

【摘要】：目的通过对邵氏“五针法”为主治疗过敏性鼻炎-哮喘综合征进行临床观察,观察两组过敏性鼻炎-哮喘综合征患者治疗前后的临床症状体征、鼻粘膜、FEV1(%)、PEF(%)、EOS的变化情况,证实本方法治疗过敏性鼻炎-哮喘综合征是一种安全经济有效的特色疗法。方法首先选取的60例患者均符合纳入标准,按照患者的就诊顺序随机分为试验组和对照组各30例。试验组30例患者采用以邵氏“五针法”为主治疗;对照组30例患者采用常规针刺治疗。两组患者.均每日治疗1次,每周.6次,共治疗.4周。患者在治疗结束后的第1个月、第2个月及第三3个月的时间各随访1次;分析治疗前后患者的FEV1、PEF、症状体征积分、EOS及鼻粘膜状况。结果1.本次研究共完成56例病例,对照组和试验组分别为28例,临床控制率57.1%,显效率39.2%,有效率3%,;对照组28例,临床控制率35.7%,显效率35.7%,有效率28.5%;试验组与对照组比较(P0.05),说明在治疗效果方面,对照组治疗效果不及试验组。2.在症状体征总分方面,两组治疗前后自身比较,有显著性差异(P0.05);试验组与对照组治疗后症状体征总积分比较,具有显著性差异(P0.05),对照组治疗效果不及试验组。3.治疗前后鼻粘膜情况、FEV1(%)、PEF(%)及EOS自身比较(P0.05);两组组间比较(P0.05)对照组治疗效果不及试验组。4.各项症状体征积分方面,试验组对照组治疗前后自身比较(P0.05);两组组间比较,其中流涕、鼻痒、鼻塞、哮鸣音、喘息、胸膈满闷症状体征积分具有显著性差异(P0.05)对照组治疗效果不及试验组。5.试验组三.次的随访与末.次治疗后.症状体征总分比较均无显.著性差异(P0.05);对照组治疗后第一次.随访与末次.治疗症状体征总分比较无显.著性差异(P0.05);但对照组第二次随访、第三次随访与末次治疗症状体征总分比较有显.著性差异(P0.05);说明试验对本病的控制优于对照组;两组组间比较,第二次随访、第三次随访症状体征总分有显.著性差异(P0.05)表明对照组治疗效果不及试验组。结论1.邵氏“五针法”能够显著改.善.过敏性鼻炎-哮喘综合征患者肺功能,降低本病患者外周血嗜酸性粒细胞计数。2.在临床症状体征方面,邵氏“五针法”能够明显改.善;尤其是在鼻塞、流涕、鼻痒、喘息、哮鸣音、胸膈满闷方面,试验组治疗效果明显优于对照组。
[Abstract]:Objective to observe the symptoms and signs of patients with allergic rhinitis and asthma syndrome before and after treatment, and to observe the changes of EOS in patients with allergic rhinitis and asthma syndrome before and after treatment. It is proved that this method is a safe, economical and effective characteristic therapy for allergic rhinitis-asthma syndrome. Methods 60 patients met the inclusion criteria and were randomly divided into two groups: the experimental group (n = 30) and the control group (n = 30). The experimental group (30 cases) was treated with Shao's "five acupuncture method" and the control group (30 cases) with routine acupuncture. Two groups of patients. The patients were treated once a day, 6 times a week, for a total of 4 weeks. The patients were followed-up 1 month, 2 months and 3 months after treatment, respectively. The FEV 1 PEF, symptom and sign scores and nasal mucosa were analyzed before and after treatment. Result 1. There were 56 cases in this study, 28 cases in the control group and 28 cases in the test group, the clinical control rate was 57.1%, the effective rate was 39.2%, the effective rate was 39.2%, and the control group was 28 cases. The clinical control rate was 35.7m, the effective rate was 35.7g and the effective rate was 28.5.The comparison between the experimental group and the control group showed that the therapeutic effect of the control group was not as good as that of the test group. In terms of the total score of symptoms and signs, there was significant difference between the two groups before and after treatment (P 0.05), and the total score of symptoms and signs between the experimental group and the control group was significantly higher than that of the control group (P 0.05), and the therapeutic effect of the control group was not as good as that of the experimental group. Before and after treatment, the nasal mucosa and EOS were compared with that of the control group (P 0.05) and the control group was not as effective as the test group (P 0.05). The scores of symptoms and signs in the experimental group were compared with that in the control group before and after treatment (P 0.05), among which were runny, itchy nose, nasal congestion, wheezing, wheezing, wheezing, wheezing, wheezing, wheezing, wheezing The score of symptoms and signs of chest and diaphragm fullness was significantly different (P 0.05) the therapeutic effect of the control group was not as good as that of the experimental group. Test group 3. All patients were followed up. After treatment. There was no significant difference in the total scores of symptoms and signs. The sex difference was P 0.05 and the control group was the first time after treatment. Follow up and last time. The total score of symptoms and signs of treatment was not obvious. The difference of sex was P 0.05, but the total score of the second follow-up, the third follow-up and the last treatment in the control group was significantly higher than that in the control group. The results showed that the control of the disease was superior to that of the control group, and the total score of symptoms and signs in the second follow-up and the third follow-up was significantly higher than that in the control group. The difference of sex (P0.05) showed that the therapeutic effect of the control group was not as good as that of the experimental group. Conclusion 1. Shao's "five-needle method" can be significantly improved. Good. Allergic rhinitis-asthma syndrome patients with lung function, reduce the peripheral blood eosinophil count. 2. 2. In clinical symptoms and signs, Shao's "five-needle method" can be significantly improved. Especially in the aspects of nasal congestion, runny, itching, wheezing, chest and diaphragm fullness, the treatment effect of the experimental group is better than that of the control group.
【学位授予单位】：河南中医药大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：R246.81

【相似文献】