单穴与多穴贴敷治疗原发性痛经的疗效对比

发布时间：2018-05-30 00:20

本文选题：单穴 + 多穴　；参考：《北京中医药大学》2016年硕士论文

【摘要】：目的：探讨如何配穴选穴进行贴敷才能更大程度地发挥其作用效应,并对比多穴与单穴贴敷治疗痛经的疗效。方法：本研究于2015年09月至2016年1月招募符合原发性痛经诊断的患者94名,依照随机数字表法随机分组,分为治疗组49人,对照组45人,治疗组贴敷关元加双侧三阴交,对照组贴敷关元,于月经期第1-3天进行贴敷治疗,每次持续治疗6小时,1个月经周期为1疗程,治疗3个疗程后应用月经失血图评价经血及血块改善情况,同时使用综合疼痛评分表、痛经症状评分表、CMSS评定疗效。结果：治疗过程中,治疗组4人因低热烫伤脱落(不良事件发生率4.26%),故最终完成实验的受试者人数90人,治疗组45人,对照组45人。①基线比较：基线可比(P0.05),差异无统计学意义。②月经量、血块量改善情况评价：两组的经量在治疗前后均无明显改变(治疗前、治疗后两组组间比较P0.05),且不同等级月经量的人数分别进行两组组间治疗前对比和治疗后对比,均有P0.05；直观上看治疗组在调节月经量和改善血块量情况方面亦有一定优势,通过统计学分析组间比较均为P0.05,无统计学意义。③痛经改善情况：两组受试者的痛经腹痛程度及痛经整体情况组内治疗前后分值比较均为P0.05,差异有统计学意义,而组间比较均为P0.05,差异无统计学意义。④伴随症状改善情况评价：两组受试者大部分的伴随症状组内比较均为P0.05,治疗前后的差异有统计学意义；直观上看治疗组在改善脾胃相关症状方面存在一定优势,进行统计学分析,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。⑤有效率分析：两组痛经腹痛程度有效率、痛经整体情况有效率采用卡方检验,均有P0.05,差异无统计学意义,两组有效率无明显差异；⑥不同证型的疗效评价：除去对照组肝郁湿热1人无效外,两组在治疗所有其他证型时疗效确切,其中,治疗组治疗实证疗效强于对照组,对照组治疗虚证的疗效强于治疗组,但进行统计学分析,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论：无论是治疗组或对照组对月经量均无不良影响,两组均可明显减少血块量,可明显缓解痛经疼痛程度、改善痛经整体情况和伴随症状,且两组相比疗效相当。即无论是贴敷关元还是贴敷关元加三阴交(双)都可以明显减轻痛经疼痛程度、改善痛经整体情况、伴随症状,且减轻程度与取穴数量多少无关。
[Abstract]:Objective: to explore how to select acupoints and apply them to a greater extent, and to compare the effect of multi-point and single-point application on dysmenorrhea. Methods: from September 2015 to January 2016, 94 patients with primary dysmenorrhea were recruited and randomly divided into treatment group (n = 49) and control group (n = 45). In the control group, Guanyuan was applied and applied on the 1-3 days of menstrual period. The treatment lasted 6 hours each time, and one menstrual cycle was a course of treatment. After 3 courses of treatment, menstrual bleeding chart was used to evaluate the improvement of menstrual circulation and clot. At the same time, comprehensive pain scale and dysmenorrhea symptom scale were used to evaluate the efficacy of CMSS. Results: during the course of treatment, 90 subjects in the treatment group and 45 in the treatment group finished the experiment because of the falling off of low fever and scalding injury (the incidence of adverse events was 4.26%). Baseline comparison of 45 subjects in the control group: the baseline was comparable to that of P0.05 with no significant difference in menstrual volume of .2 months. Evaluation of the improvement of blood clot volume: before and after treatment, there was no significant change in menstrual volume between the two groups (before and after treatment, After treatment, there was P0.05 comparison between the two groups, and the number of people of different grades of menstrual volume were compared before and after treatment respectively between the two groups, there were P0.05. intuitively, the treatment group also had some advantages in regulating menstrual volume and improving the volume of blood clot. There was no significant difference in the improvement of dysmenorrhea between the two groups by statistical analysis (P 0.05). The degree of abdominal dysmenorrhea and the score of dysmenorrhea before and after treatment in the two groups were both P0.05, and the difference was statistically significant. There was no significant difference between the two groups (P 0.05). There was significant difference between the two groups before and after treatment. Intuitively, the treatment group had some advantages in improving the symptoms related to spleen and stomach. The difference was not statistically significant (P 0.05). 5. The effective rate of dysmenorrhea was analyzed: the degree of abdominal pain of dysmenorrhea was effective, and the overall effective rate of dysmenorrhea was chi-square test. There was no significant difference in effective rate between the two groups (P 0.05, P 0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the evaluation of efficacy of different syndromes: except that 1 person in the control group had no effect on liver depression, dampness and heat, the two groups were effective in treating all the other syndromes, among which, there was no significant difference between the two groups. The therapeutic effect of the treatment group was stronger than that of the control group, and that of the control group was stronger than that of the treatment group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P 0.05). Conclusion: both the treatment group and the control group have no adverse effects on menstrual volume. Both groups can significantly reduce the blood clot, relieve the degree of dysmenorrhea pain, improve the overall condition and associated symptoms of dysmenorrhea, and the curative effect is similar between the two groups. That is, whether the application of Guanyuan or the application of Guanyuan plus Sanyinjiao (double) can significantly reduce the degree of dysmenorrhea pain, improve the overall situation of dysmenorrhea, accompanied by symptoms, and the degree of relief is not related to the number of acupoints taken.
【学位授予单位】：北京中医药大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：R246.3

【相似文献】