脊柱牵伸手法床治疗慢性腰痛的疗效观察

发布时间：2018-12-19 17:06

【摘要】：目的：观察脊柱牵伸手法床对慢性腰痛患者的临床疗效。方法：于2014.06.01—2015.10.31期间,从福建中医药大学附属康复医院骨伤科门诊按纳入标准和排除标准收集慢性腰痛患者80例,根据随机数字表分为两组：实验组40人,对照组40人。实验组给予脊柱牵伸手法床治疗,每周3次,每次30分钟。对照组给予传统整脊疗法治疗,亦是每周3次,每次30分钟。两组患者治疗8周后进行比较。观察两组患者腰痛程度(VAS视觉评分量表)、功能障碍程度(RMDQ腰部功能障碍调查表)、脊柱前凸角(lordotic angle)、椎体偏移角度(surface rotation)等的实验前后变化。最后通过SPSS18.0软件进行统计学分析。结果：治疗8周后分别比较两组慢性腰痛患者的腰痛程度的变化(VAS评分)、功能障碍程度的变化(RMDQ评分)、脊柱前凸角(lordotic angle)及椎体偏移角度(surface rotation)的变化。实验组和对照组患者VAS视觉评分分别为：治疗前(6.37士1.50、6.31士1.51),治疗后(3.34士1.03、2.89士0.93),前后变化值(3.03士1.01、3.43士0.98)：RMDQ腰部功能障碍调查表分别为：治疗前(15.42士4.36、15.38士4.37),治疗后(10.53士4.28、10.62士3.37),前后变化值(0.89士1.61、0.74士1.38)；两组患者脊柱前凸角分别为：治疗前(25.83士4.91、25.71士4.80)°,治疗后(36.20士3.83、26.20士4.76)°,前后变化值(-10.37士4.63、-0.49士1.04)°；两组患者椎体偏移角度分别为：治疗前(9.03士2.70、9.49士2.63)°,治疗后(5.57士1.84、5.69士2.08)°,前后变化值(3.46士1.42、3.80士1.13)°。根据统计学分析,两组VAS视觉评分量表与RMDQ腰部功能障碍调查表治疗前后比较均有显著性差异(P0.05),有统计学意义；但两组VAS视觉评分量表与RMDQ腰部功能障碍调查表前后变化值比较均无差别(P0.05),无统计学意义。实验组的脊柱前凸角异常改善程度优于对照组(P0.05),有统计学意义。实验组的椎体偏移角度异常改善程度较于对照组无差别(P0.05),无统计学意义：但两组治疗前后比较有显著性差异(P0.05),有统计学意义。结论：脊柱牵伸手法床和传统整脊疗法对慢性腰痛患者皆有良好的缓解疼痛和改善腰部功能障碍的效果,二者疗效相近；脊柱牵伸手法床对脊柱前凸角改善程度较传统整脊疗法疗效更好,二者对椎体偏移角度改善疗效相近。
[Abstract]:Objective: to observe the clinical effect of spinal traction manipulation bed on patients with chronic low back pain. Methods: 80 patients with chronic low back pain were collected from Department of Orthopedics and Trauma, affiliated Rehabilitation Hospital of Fujian University of traditional Chinese Medicine from January to October 31, 2014.The patients were divided into two groups according to the random number table: 40 patients in the experimental group, 40 patients in the experimental group, and 40 patients in the experimental group. There were 40 cases in the control group. The experimental group was treated with spinal traction manipulation bed 3 times a week for 30 minutes. The control group was treated with traditional chiropractic therapy 3 times a week for 30 minutes. The two groups were compared after 8 weeks of treatment. The changes of the degree of low back pain (VAS visual scale), the degree of dysfunction (RMDQ waist dysfunction questionnaire) and the angle of (lordotic angle), vertebral body deviation (surface rotation) were observed before and after the experiment. Finally, the statistical analysis is carried out by SPSS18.0 software. Results: after 8 weeks of treatment, the changes of the degree of low back pain (VAS), the degree of dysfunction (RMDQ), the (lordotic angle) of kyphosis angle and the angle of vertebral body deviation (surface rotation) were compared between the two groups. The VAS visual scores of patients in experimental group and control group were: before treatment (6.37 卤1.50 卤6.31 卤1.51) and after treatment (3.34 卤1.03 卤2.89 卤0.93), respectively. The changes before and after treatment (3.03 卤1.01 卤3.43 卤0.98): RMDQ) were: before treatment (15.42 卤4.36 卤15.38 卤4.37), after treatment (10.53 卤4.2810.62 卤3.37), before treatment (15.42 卤4.36 卤15.38 卤4.37), after treatment (10.53 卤4.2810.62 卤3.37). Before and after the change (0.89 卤1.61 卤0.74 卤1.38); The kyphosis angle of the two groups was (25.83 卤4.91 卤25.71 卤4.80) 掳before treatment, (36.20 卤3.83 卤3.83 卤26.20 卤4.76) 掳before and after treatment, and before and after treatment (-10.37 卤4.63) 掳. -0.49 卤1.04) 掳; The vertebral body deviation angle of the two groups was (9.03 卤2.709.49 卤2.63) 掳before treatment, (5.57 卤1.84 卤5.69 卤2.08) 掳after treatment, and (3.46 卤1.42 卤3.80 卤1.13 掳) 掳before and after treatment. According to statistical analysis, there were significant differences between the two groups before and after the treatment of VAS visual score scale and RMDQ waist dysfunction questionnaire (P0.05). However, there was no significant difference between the VAS visual score scale and the RMDQ waist dysfunction scale before and after the changes (P0.05). The degree of abnormal improvement of kyphosis angle in the experimental group was better than that in the control group (P0.05). There was no significant difference between the experimental group and the control group (P0.05), but there was significant difference between the two groups before and after treatment (P0.05). Conclusion: spinal traction manipulation bed and traditional chiropractic therapy have good effect on relieving pain and improving lumbar dysfunction in patients with chronic low back pain. The degree of improvement of kyphosis angle in spinal traction manipulation bed was better than that in traditional chiropractic therapy.
【学位授予单位】：福建中医药大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：R274.9

【相似文献】