巨刺法配合局部刺络治疗肩周炎（瘀滞证）的临床研究

发布时间：2018-06-08 23:26

本文选题：肩周炎 + 巨刺法　；参考：《成都中医药大学》2016年硕士论文

【摘要】：目的：通过观察巨刺法配合局部刺络对肩周炎(瘀滞证)的影响,比较巨刺法配合局部刺络和常规针刺配合局部刺络两种疗法的临床疗效、安全性及依从性,为临床治疗肩周炎(瘀滞证)提供新思路新方法。方法：本研究严格采用随机、对照的研究方法,将纳入的72例患者,随机分为对照组(常规针刺配合局部刺络组)、治疗组(巨刺法配合局部刺络组),每组36例。连续治疗12次,每周3次,隔日1次,观察治疗前与治疗后CMS肩关节功能评分中疼痛、日常生活能力、肩关节活动度、肌力、总分评分以及VAS视觉模拟评分量表评分的变化,以判定疗效。结果：1.两组基线均衡,两组受试者在性别、年龄、病程、病情轻重程度均无显著差异(P0.05),有可比性；两组治疗前VAS视觉模拟评分、CMS肩关节功能各项评分均无显著差异(P0.05),有可比性。2.治疗完成后,两组进行治疗前后组内比较：两组的CMS评分中疼痛、日常生活能力、肩关节活动度、肌力、总分评分以及VAS评分均较治疗前有变化,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。3.治疗完成后,两组进行治疗后组间比较：CMS评分中日常生活能力评分,两组差异有统计学差异(P0.05)；两组VAS评分和CMS评分中疼痛、肩关节活动度、肌力及总分积分比较,两组差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。4.总疗效评定：对照组治愈18例,好转12例,无效5例,总有效率85.71%。治疗组治愈11例,好转17例,无效6例,总有效率82.35%。两组临床疗效比较,P=0.1630.05,差异无统计学意义,提示两组临床疗效无显著性差异。结论：1.巨刺法配合局部刺络和常规针刺配合局部刺络对肩周炎(瘀滞证)均有较好的疗效。2.巨刺法配合局部刺络在改善日常生活能力方面优于常规针刺配合局部刺络组；两组在改善疼痛、肩关节活动度、肌力方面的疗效相当。3.两种治疗方法的安全性和依从性均较好。
[Abstract]:Objective: to observe the effect of giant needling combined with local pricking on shoulder periarthritis (stagnation syndrome), and to compare the clinical efficacy, safety and compliance of two kinds of therapy, namely, giant needling combined with local pricking and routine acupuncture combined with local pricking. To provide a new method for clinical treatment of shoulder periarthritis (stagnation syndrome). Methods: in this study, 72 patients were randomly divided into control group (routine acupuncture combined with local pricking collaterals) and treatment group (36 cases in each group). The changes of pain, ADL, shoulder motion, muscle strength, total score and VAS visual analogue scale (VAS) were observed before and after treatment for 12 consecutive treatments, 3 times a week and once every other day. To judge the curative effect. The result is 1: 1. There was no significant difference in sex, age, course of disease and severity of illness between the two groups (P 0.05), and there was no significant difference in the visual analogue score (VAS) before treatment between the two groups (P 0.05), and there was no significant difference between the two groups (P 0.05). After the treatment, the two groups were compared before and after the treatment: pain, ADL, shoulder motion, muscle strength, total score and VAS score were significantly different between the two groups before and after the treatment, and the difference was statistically significant (P 0.05. 3). After the treatment, the two groups were compared with each other in the score of daily living (ADL) score in the score of: CMS, the difference was significant (P 0.05), the scores of pain, shoulder motion, muscle strength and total score were compared between the two groups in VAS score and CMS score, and the scores of shoulder motion, muscle strength and total score were compared between the two groups. There was no significant difference between the two groups (P 0.05. 4). Total curative effect evaluation: 18 cases were cured, 12 cases were improved, 5 cases were ineffective in the control group, the total effective rate was 85.71%. In the treatment group, 11 cases were cured, 17 cases were improved, 6 cases were ineffective, the total effective rate was 82.35%. There was no significant difference in clinical efficacy between the two groups, indicating that there was no significant difference in clinical efficacy between the two groups. Conclusion 1. Giant needling method combined with local pricking collaterals and routine acupuncture combined with local pricking collaterals have good curative effect on shoulder periarthritis (stagnation syndrome). 2. The two groups were superior to the routine acupuncture combined with local pricking group in improving the ability of daily living, and the two groups had the same curative effect in improving pain, shoulder motion and muscle strength. The safety and compliance of the two treatments were good.
【学位授予单位】：成都中医药大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：R246.9

【相似文献】