本文選題：貝爾氏麻痹　切入點(diǎn)：恢復(fù)期　出處：《云南中醫(yī)學(xué)院》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：目的:此研究旨在通過對治療組(針刺配合電針、刺血療法)、對照組(針刺配合電針)在貝爾氏麻痹恢復(fù)期淤血阻絡(luò)證的治療效果進(jìn)行觀察對比,為貝爾氏麻痹恢復(fù)期臨床治療方案的優(yōu)化提供參考。方法:將符合標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的70例貝爾麻痹患者運(yùn)用隨機(jī)數(shù)字分組法分治療組和對照組,每組均為35例。治療組:針刺加電針、刺血療法;對照組:針刺加電針。兩組均分別收治日、1個療程、2個療程、3個療程時根據(jù)面部評分及H-B分級分別進(jìn)行療效觀察評定比較,統(tǒng)計后通過SPSSS21.0進(jìn)行數(shù)據(jù)分析。結(jié)果:1.治療前對符合納入標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的兩組患者在性別、年齡、病程、面部評分、H-B分級上的進(jìn)行統(tǒng)計學(xué)分析,無顯著差異(P0.05),具有可比性。2.治療一個療程后的結(jié)果分析:(1)治療組與對照組在面部評分上分別與治療前進(jìn)行組內(nèi)比較,有顯著性差異(P0.01)。提示兩種治療方案均有效。(2)治療組與對照組組間面部評分的組間比較,無顯著差異(P0.05),提示一個療程的治療結(jié)束后,兩個組的治療方法在面部評分改善情況上無明顯差異。(3)治療組與對照組H-B分級的組間比較,無顯著差異(P0.05),提示一個療程的治療結(jié)束后,兩個組的治療方法在H-B分級改善情況上無明顯的差異。(4)治療組與對照組療效上的組間比較,無顯著差異(P0.05),提示一個療程的治療結(jié)束后,兩個組的治療方法在療效上無明顯的差異。3.治療兩個療程后的結(jié)果分析:(1)治療組與對照組面部評分的組間比較,有顯著差異(P0.05),提示兩個療程的治療結(jié)束后,治療組的治療方法在面部評分改善情況上優(yōu)于對照組。(2)治療組與對照組H-B分級的組間比較,有顯著差異(P0.05),提示兩個療程的治療結(jié)束后,治療組的治療方法在H-B分級改善情況上優(yōu)于對照組。(3)治療組與對照組療效的組間比較,有顯著差異(P0.05),提示兩個療程的治療結(jié)束后,治療組治療方法在療效上優(yōu)于對照組。4.治療三個療程后的結(jié)果分析:(1)治療組與對照組面部評分的組間比較,有顯著差異(P0.05),提示三個療程的治療結(jié)束后,治療組的治療方法在面部評分改善情況上優(yōu)于對照組。(2)治療組與對照組H-B分級的組間比較,有顯著差異(P0.05),提示三個療程的治療結(jié)束后,治療組的治療方法在H-B分級改善情況上優(yōu)于對照組。(3)治療組和對照組療效的組間比較,治療組:治愈14例,顯效15例,有效1例,治愈率為46.667%,愈顯率為96.667%,有效率為100%;對照組:治愈8例,顯效16例,有效6例,無效1例,治愈率為25.806%,愈顯率為77.419%,有效率為96.774%。兩組在療效上的比較,有顯著差異(P0.05),提示三個療程治療結(jié)束后,治療組的方法在療效上優(yōu)于對照組。結(jié)論:1.治療組(針刺配合電針、刺血療法)與對照組(針刺配合電針)對于貝爾麻痹恢復(fù)期淤血阻絡(luò)證的治療均有顯著療效。2.治療組的方法治療貝爾氏麻痹恢復(fù)期瘀血阻絡(luò)證的療效比對照組更有優(yōu)勢,是一種較好的貝爾氏麻痹恢復(fù)期淤血阻絡(luò)證的治療方法,對貝爾氏麻痹恢復(fù)期的治療有積極作用。
[Abstract]:Objective: This study aims to the treatment group (acupuncture combined with electro acupuncture and pricking blood therapy) and control group (acupuncture and electroacupuncture) recovery extravasated blood blocking collaterals in Bell's palsy treatment effects were observed and compared, to provide a reference for the clinical treatment of Bell's palsy recovery optimization scheme. Methods: the 70 cases of Baer using the random number table method paralysis patients were divided into treatment group and control group, each group had 35 cases. The treatment group: Acupuncture plus Electroacupuncture, bloodletting therapy; control group: electroacupuncture. Two groups were treated, 1 courses, 2 courses, 3 courses according to the facial and H-B scores respectively. Comparison of efficacy assessment, statistical data were analyzed by SPSSS21.0. Results: 1. before treatment to two groups of patients met the inclusion criteria in gender, age, disease duration, facial score, statistics on the H-B classification analysis, no significant difference (P0.05) That is comparable to that of.2. after a course of treatment results: (1) the treatment group and the control group in the face score before treatment group were compared, there was significant difference (P0.01). Two kinds of treatment that are effective. (2) the treatment group compared with the control group face the score between the groups, no significant difference (P0.05), suggesting that the end of treatment after a course of treatment, the two groups had no significant difference in score improvement on the face. (3) the treatment group compared with the control group of H-B grade group, no significant difference (P0.05), the end tip of a treatment after the course of treatment, two groups of treatment in H-B grade improved no obvious difference between the situation. (4) the treatment group and the control group the curative effect between the two groups, no significant difference (P0.05), suggesting that the end of treatment after a course of treatment, the two groups had no significant difference.3. two course of treatment in the curative effect after The results of the analysis: (1) the treatment group and the control group face score between the two groups, there was significant difference (P0.05), the end tip treatment after two courses of treatment, the treatment group was better than the control group in the face. (2) the treatment group compared with the control group of H-B grade group, there were significant differences (P0.05), the end tip treatment after two courses of treatment, treatment group improved better than the control group in the classification of H-B. (3) the treatment group compared with the control group curative effect between the groups, there was significant difference (P0.05), suggesting that treatment of two courses after the end of treatment. The effect of treatment group than the control group.4. after three cycles of treatment and analysis results: (1) the treatment group and the control group face score between the two groups, there was significant difference (P0.05), the end tip treatment after three courses of treatment, the treatment group was better than the control group in the face .(2)娌葷枟緇勪笌瀵圭収緇凥-B鍒嗙駭鐨勭粍闂存瘮杈，

本文編號：1692240