本文選題：火針點(diǎn)刺法 + 針刺�。� 參考：《河南中醫(yī)藥大學(xué)》2016年碩士論文

【摘要】：目的觀察火針點(diǎn)刺法與單純針刺法治療腦卒中后肩-手綜合征的臨床療效以及其療效差異,驗(yàn)證火針點(diǎn)刺法對(duì)腦卒中后肩-手綜合征的有效性,并且對(duì)比兩種療法各自的優(yōu)勢(shì)與不足,并分析探討其原因。方法將符合入組標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的60例腦卒中后肩-手綜合征患者根據(jù)隨機(jī)分組法分為治療組(火針點(diǎn)刺組)和對(duì)照組(單純針刺組),每組各30例。治療組運(yùn)用火針點(diǎn)刺患側(cè)手臂腧穴(肩毭穴、肩毼穴、肩貞穴、臂佈穴、曲池穴、曲澤穴、外關(guān)穴、合谷穴、陽(yáng)池穴、中渚穴)進(jìn)行治療,隔日1次,14天為1個(gè)療程,持續(xù)治療2個(gè)療程,每療程后休息2天;對(duì)照組運(yùn)用單純針刺患側(cè)手臂腧穴(肩毭穴、肩毼穴、肩貞穴、臂佈穴、曲池穴、曲澤穴、外關(guān)穴、合谷穴、陽(yáng)池穴、中渚穴)進(jìn)行治療,每日1次,14天為1個(gè)療程,連續(xù)治療2個(gè)療程,每療程后休息2天。本研究選用視覺模擬評(píng)分(VAS)法、水腫程度測(cè)定以及肩-手綜合征評(píng)估量表為觀察指標(biāo),在治療開始前、1個(gè)療程治療后以及2個(gè)療程治療后對(duì)疼痛、水腫以及整體狀況進(jìn)行量化評(píng)分,然后進(jìn)行數(shù)據(jù)分析、療效評(píng)價(jià)。結(jié)果1治療組與對(duì)照組治療前后,疼痛評(píng)分組間對(duì)比,經(jīng)獨(dú)立樣本t檢驗(yàn),均為P0.05,差異未見統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義,提示治療組與對(duì)照組在改善疼痛方面經(jīng)2療程治療后改善未見明顯差異。兩組治療前后疼痛評(píng)分組內(nèi)比較,2個(gè)療程治療后分別組內(nèi)比較,經(jīng)配對(duì)樣本t檢驗(yàn),均為P0.05,提示在2個(gè)療程后,治療組與對(duì)照組在改善疼痛方面均具有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)差異。2治療組與對(duì)照組治療前后,水腫積分組間對(duì)比,經(jīng)獨(dú)立樣本t檢驗(yàn),均為P0.05,差異未見統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義,提示治療組與對(duì)照組在改善水腫癥狀方面經(jīng)兩療程治療后未見明顯差異。兩組治療前后水腫積分組內(nèi)比較,2個(gè)療程后分別組內(nèi)比較,經(jīng)配對(duì)樣本t檢驗(yàn),均為P0.05,提示在2個(gè)療程后,治療組與對(duì)照組對(duì)水腫程度的改善均有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)差異。3治療組與對(duì)照組治療前后,SHS積分組間,經(jīng)1個(gè)療程治療后,兩組組間經(jīng)獨(dú)立樣本t檢驗(yàn),P0.05,提示兩組組間在SHS積分改善方面未見統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)差異;經(jīng)2個(gè)療程治療后,兩組組間經(jīng)獨(dú)立樣本t檢驗(yàn),P0.05,提示治療組與對(duì)照組在改善SHS積分差異具有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義,治療在改善SHS積分方面優(yōu)于對(duì)照組。兩組治療前后SHS積分組內(nèi)比較,2個(gè)療程分別與治療前比較,經(jīng)配對(duì)樣本t檢驗(yàn),兩組均為P0.05,治療組與對(duì)照組在改善SHS積分方面均具有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)差異。4治療組與對(duì)照組治療前后,對(duì)兩組臨床療效進(jìn)行有序分類秩和檢驗(yàn),兩組對(duì)比差異具有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(P0.05)。治療組總有效率為96.67%,顯效率為50.00%,對(duì)照組總有效率為100%,顯效率為13.33%,提示治療組在改善SHS患者整體癥狀方面優(yōu)于對(duì)照組。結(jié)論1火針點(diǎn)刺法與單純針刺法治療SHS對(duì)于疼痛程度均有改善作用,兩種治療方法對(duì)于疼痛的改善未見統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)差異。2火針點(diǎn)刺法與單純針刺法治療SHS對(duì)于水腫方面均有改善作用,兩種治療方法對(duì)于水腫的改善未見統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)差異。3火針點(diǎn)刺法與單純針刺法治療SHS對(duì)于SHS評(píng)估積分的改善均有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義,且火針點(diǎn)刺法優(yōu)于單純針刺組。4火針點(diǎn)刺法在療效評(píng)定方面優(yōu)于單純針刺法,治療顯效率高于單純針刺組。
[Abstract]:Objective To observe the clinical effect and the difference of the curative effect of the Fire Needling and simple acupuncture in the treatment of shoulder hand syndrome after stroke, and to verify the effectiveness of the fire needling method for the shoulder hand syndrome after stroke, and compare the advantages and disadvantages of the two therapies, and analyze the reasons. The method will be in accordance with the standard of the 60 cases of cerebral apoplexy. The patients with posterior shoulder hand syndrome were divided into the treatment group (fire needling group) and the control group (simple acupuncture group), 30 cases in each group. The treatment group was treated with the acupuncture point (shoulder points, shoulder points, shoulder chastity points, JIACHU point, Qu Chi point, Qu Ze point, Wai Guan acupoint, Hegu Point, Yang Chi acupoint, Zhong Zhu acupoint). For 1 courses, 2 courses of treatment were continued, and after 2 days after each course of treatment, the control group was treated with simple acupuncture at the arm acupoints (shoulder points, shoulder points, shoulder chastity points, JIACHU point, Qu Chi point, Qu Ze point, Wai Guan acupoint, Hegu Point, Yang Chi acupoint, Zhong Zhu acupoint), 1 times a day, 14 days for 2 courses, and 2 days after each course. The study selected visual analogue score (VAS), edema degree and shoulder hand syndrome assessment scale as the observation index. Before the treatment began, after 1 courses of treatment, and after 2 courses of treatment, the pain, edema and overall status were quantified, and then the data were analyzed and the curative effect was evaluated. Results the 1 treatment group and the control group were treated before treatment. After the pain score group comparison, the independent sample t test, all P0.05, the difference was not statistically significant, suggesting that the treatment group and the control group were not significantly different after 2 courses of treatment improvement in pain improvement. The two groups before and after treatment in the pain score group, after 2 courses of treatment in the group comparison, the paired sample t test, all P0.05 After 2 courses of treatment, the treatment group and the control group have statistical difference in improving the pain,.2 treatment group and the control group before and after treatment, the edema score group comparison, the independent sample t test, all are P0.05, the difference is not statistically significant, suggesting that the treatment group and the control group have not seen the improvement of edema symptoms after two courses of treatment. The two groups were compared before and after treatment in the edema score group, after 2 courses of comparison, the paired sample t test was P0.05, suggesting that after 2 courses of treatment, the improvement of edema in the treatment group and the control group was statistically different between the.3 treatment group and the control group before and after the treatment of the SHS integral group, and after 1 courses of treatment, the two groups were between the two groups. Independent sample t test, P0.05, indicating that there was no statistical difference between the two groups in improving the SHS score. After 2 courses of treatment, the two groups were tested by independent sample t test and P0.05, suggesting that the treatment group and the control group were statistically significant in improving the difference of SHS integral, and the treatment was better than the control group in the improvement of the SHS score. The SHS product of the two groups before and after treatment. In the group comparison, the 2 courses were compared with those before the treatment, the paired sample t test, the two groups were all P0.05, the treatment group and the control group had statistical difference in improving the SHS score. Before and after the treatment of the.4 treatment group and the control group, the two groups of clinical curative effects were classified and tested in order, and the difference of the two groups was statistically significant (P0.05). The total effective rate of the treatment group was 96.67%, the effective rate was 50%, the total effective rate of the control group was 100%, the effective rate was 13.33%, suggesting that the treatment group was better than the control group in improving the overall symptoms of SHS patients. Conclusion the 1 acupuncture point pricking method and the simple acupuncture treatment of SHS have an improved effect on the degree of pain, and the two treatment methods have no statistics on the pain improvement. The difference between the.2 acupuncture method and the simple acupuncture treatment for the edema of SHS was improved. There was no statistical difference between the two methods for the improvement of edema..3 Fire Needling and simple acupuncture treatment of SHS for the improvement of the score of SHS were statistically significant, and the fire needling method was superior to that of the pure acupuncture group.4 Fire Needling. The curative effect of the method was better than that of the acupuncture alone, and the effective rate of treatment was higher than that of the simple acupuncture group.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：河南中醫(yī)藥大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號(hào)】：R246.6

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 鄭學(xué)良;黃暉;;火針點(diǎn)刺法治療小兒遺尿癥[J];錦州醫(yī)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1990年03期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 丁潤(rùn)澤;火針點(diǎn)刺法治療腦卒中后肩—手綜合征臨床研究[D];河南中醫(yī)藥大學(xué);2016年

，

本文編號(hào)：2082019