本文選題：合谷刺法　切入點(diǎn)：第三腰椎橫突綜合征　出處：《福建中醫(yī)藥大學(xué)》2016年碩士論文

【摘要】：目的：基于等長收縮最大肌力觀察合谷刺法治療第三腰椎橫突綜合征的臨床療效,為古法今用在臨床治療方面提供客觀依據(jù)及新思路。方法：將60例符合要求的第三腰椎橫突綜合征患者隨機(jī)分成治療組和對照組,治療組30例,對照組30例。治療組予合谷刺法治療,每日治療1次,每次治療時(shí)間為30分鐘,7次為1個(gè)療程,共治療2個(gè)療程；對照組予常規(guī)針刺法治療,治療的時(shí)間、周期同治療組。兩組患者在首次治療前與末次治療后都各做1次等長收縮最大肌力檢測及VAS評分。治療2個(gè)療程后,通過組內(nèi)自身前后對比及組間對比觀察比較其臨床療效。結(jié)果：1.臨床療效：治療組有效率為77.78%,治愈率為29.63%,對照組有效率為62.96%,治愈率為3.70%,兩組有效率相比無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)差異(P＞0.05),治愈率相比有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)差異(P0.05)。2.腰部等長收縮最大肌力：(1)治療前,兩組患者前屈、背伸、左右側(cè)屈、左右旋轉(zhuǎn)各方向腰部等長收縮最大肌力相比無顯著差異,具有可比性(P0.05)；(2)治療2個(gè)療程后,兩組組內(nèi)比較顯示,兩組患者腰部各方向等長收縮最大肌力與治療前比較均顯示有顯著統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)差異(P0.01)；(3)治療2個(gè)療程后,兩組組間比較顯示,兩組患者左旋轉(zhuǎn)、右旋轉(zhuǎn)方向腰部等長收縮最大肌力相比均有顯著統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)差異(P0.01),而前屈、背伸、左側(cè)屈、右側(cè)屈方向腰部等長收縮最大肌力比較無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)差異(P0.05)。3.VAS：(1)治療前,兩組患者VAS評分具有可比性(P0.05)；(2)治療2個(gè)療程后,兩組患者治療前后組內(nèi)對比VAS均有顯著下降(P0.01)；(3)治療2個(gè)療程后,兩組患者VAS組間對比顯示有顯著統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)差異(P0.01)。結(jié)論：1.合谷刺法和常規(guī)針刺法治療第三腰椎橫突綜合征均有療效,但合谷刺法的治愈率優(yōu)于常規(guī)針刺法。2.合谷刺法和常規(guī)針刺法治療后對第三腰椎橫突綜合征患者腰部各方向等長收縮最大肌力均有改善作用,但合谷刺法改善左旋轉(zhuǎn)、右旋轉(zhuǎn)方向腰部等長收縮最大肌力優(yōu)于常規(guī)針刺法。3.合谷刺法和常規(guī)針刺法治療后均能減輕疼痛,但合谷刺法在減輕疼痛上優(yōu)于常規(guī)針刺法。
[Abstract]:Objective: to observe the clinical effect of Hegu acupuncture on the third lumbar transverse process syndrome based on the maximum muscle strength of isometric contraction. Methods: 60 cases of the third lumbar transverse process syndrome were randomly divided into the treatment group and the control group, 30 cases in the treatment group, 30 cases in the treatment group, 30 cases in the treatment group, 30 cases in the treatment group, 30 cases in the treatment group, 30 cases in the treatment group, 30 cases in the treatment group. The control group (30 cases) was treated with Hegu needling method once a day for 30 minutes and 7 times as a course of treatment for 2 courses of treatment, while the control group was treated with routine acupuncture method for the time of treatment. In the same treatment group, the patients in the two groups were given 1 isometric maximum contraction muscle strength test and VAS score before and after the first treatment and after the last treatment. After two courses of treatment, Results: clinical efficacy: the effective rate of the treatment group was 77.78, the cure rate was 29.63. In the control group, the effective rate was 62.96 and the cure rate was 3.70. There was no statistical difference between the two groups. The difference was significant (P > 0.05), and the cure rate was significantly higher than that of the control group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the maximum muscle strength of the lumbar isometric contraction in different directions of rotation and left, but there was no significant difference between the two groups after two courses of treatment (P 0.05). After two courses of treatment, the comparison between the two groups showed that the maximum muscle strength of the lumbar isometric contraction in the two groups was higher than that in the control group. The maximal muscle strength of isometric contraction in all directions of waist in both groups was significantly different from that before treatment (P 0.01) after 2 courses of treatment, the comparison between the two groups showed that the patients in the two groups rotated left. The maximum muscle strength of isometric contraction in the right rotation direction was significantly different from that in the waist, but there was no significant difference in the maximum muscle strength of the lumbar isometric contraction in the front flexion, back extension, left flexion and right flexion direction (P 0.05. 3. Vas: 1) before the treatment, there was no significant difference in the maximum muscle strength of the lumbar isometric contraction in the right rotation direction. The VAS scores of the two groups were comparable (P0.05 / 2). After two courses of treatment, the comparison of VAS between the two groups was significantly lower than that in the control group (P 0.01) after 2 courses of treatment, and there was no significant difference between the two groups before and after the treatment. There was a significant statistical difference between the two groups in VAS group. Conclusion: Hegu acupuncture and routine acupuncture are effective in the treatment of the third lumbar transverse process syndrome. However, the cure rate of Hegu needling method was better than that of conventional acupuncture method .2.Hegu needling method and conventional acupuncture method could improve the maximum muscle strength of isometric contraction in all directions of the waist of the patients with third lumbar transverse process syndrome, but Hegu needling method could improve left rotation. The maximum muscle force of isometric contraction in the right rotation direction is better than that of the conventional acupuncture method .3.Hegu needling and conventional acupuncture can both relieve the pain, but the Hegu acupuncture is superior to the conventional acupuncture in alleviating the pain.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：福建中醫(yī)藥大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號】：R246.9

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王淑芬;合谷刺治療肌纖組織炎30例[J];航空航天醫(yī)藥;2003年02期

2 張載義,黃文燕;“合谷刺”刺法考[J];針灸臨床雜志;2003年11期

3 張衛(wèi)東;王丕敏;;合谷刺及其臨床應(yīng)用[J];山西中醫(yī)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年01期

4 辛艷;諸毅暉;吳芳鵬;;淺議合谷刺[J];針灸臨床雜志;2008年05期

5 李豐;孟羽;;合谷刺治療膝骨性關(guān)節(jié)炎的臨床觀察[J];甘肅中醫(yī);2009年05期

6 周國富;;“合谷刺”在腹部減肥中的運(yùn)用[J];上海針灸雜志;2010年10期

7 鄭先麗;劉泉宏;黃莉莉;李應(yīng)昆;;合谷刺治療肩周炎的研究進(jìn)展[J];針灸臨床雜志;2013年06期

8 李志道;;“合谷刺”的意義及應(yīng)用[J];天津中醫(yī)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1985年04期

9 高平洋;宗家龍;;合谷刺治療陳舊性軟組織損傷320例[J];上海針灸雜志;1996年S1期

10 冷際琴,張玲;合谷刺法的臨床應(yīng)用[J];泰山醫(yī)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1997年01期

相關(guān)會議論文 前4條

1 安軍明;董聯(lián)合;楊小波;;聽宮穴、外關(guān)穴合谷刺為主治療突發(fā)性耳聾30例臨床療效觀察[A];2011中國針灸學(xué)會年會論文集（摘要）[C];2011年

2 安軍明;董聯(lián)合;楊小波;;聽宮穴外關(guān)穴合谷刺為主治療突發(fā)性耳聾30例臨床療效觀察[A];中國針灸學(xué)會臨床分會全國第十九屆針灸臨床學(xué)術(shù)研討會論文集[C];2011年

3 李建武;熊源胤;;合谷刺治療肩周炎46例臨床觀察[A];中國針灸學(xué)會2005年學(xué)術(shù)年會論文匯編[C];2005年

4 鄭麗靜;東貴榮;;風(fēng)池穴合谷刺法針刺治療頸型頸椎病62例療效觀察[A];中國針灸學(xué)會2009學(xué)術(shù)年會論文集（下集）[C];2009年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前8條

1 林秋平;基于等長收縮最大肌力觀察合谷刺法治療第三腰椎橫突綜合征的臨床研究[D];福建中醫(yī)藥大學(xué);2016年

2 李正善;“合谷刺”法治療面神經(jīng)麻痹的臨床觀察[D];南京中醫(yī)藥大學(xué);2006年

3 馮麗媛;合谷刺電針動法對腦卒中后腕背伸功能恢復(fù)的臨床研究[D];黑龍江中醫(yī)藥大學(xué);2010年

4 唐云峰;合谷刺法治療肩周炎的臨床療效觀察[D];湖南中醫(yī)藥大學(xué);2010年

5 劉岳;“合谷刺”上廉泉穴配合項(xiàng)針治療中風(fēng)后吞咽困難的臨床研究[D];長春中醫(yī)藥大學(xué);2010年

6 孫小瑩;浮刺、分刺、合谷刺法干預(yù)亞健康態(tài)頸部不適的療效比較研究[D];成都中醫(yī)藥大學(xué);2012年

7 鄭先麗;合谷刺法配合拔罐治療肩周炎（風(fēng)寒濕型）的隨機(jī)對照臨床研究[D];成都中醫(yī)藥大學(xué);2014年

8 邢曉東;合谷透后溪針刺法治療中風(fēng)后手指拘攣的臨床觀察[D];黑龍江中醫(yī)藥大學(xué);2011年

，

本文編號：1682789