【摘要】：目的:觀察藥線植入療法治療結(jié)腸慢傳輸便秘的臨床研究。方法:將92例結(jié)腸慢傳輸便秘患者,隨機(jī)分為藥線治療組、羊腸線對(duì)照組、口服枸緣酸莫沙比利對(duì)照組。其中藥線治療組31例患者;羊腸線對(duì)照組30例患者,口服枸櫞酸莫沙必利組29例患者。藥線治療組和羊腸線對(duì)照組均治療1次,口服枸櫞酸莫沙必利組服藥2周。觀察三組患者分別在治療前、第2周、第4周和第6周的各癥狀評(píng)分及總有效率。結(jié)果:1.第2周,藥線治療組與羊腸線對(duì)照組和枸櫞酸莫沙必利對(duì)照組三組患者各癥狀較治療前均有所改善,藥線治療組總有效率為96.8%,羊腸線對(duì)照組總有效率為90.0%,口服枸緣酸莫沙比利對(duì)照組總有效率為86.2%,P0.05,無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義,三組患者第2周療效相互之間無(wú)明顯差異。2.第4周,治療組總有效率為96.8%,羊腸線對(duì)照組總有效率為90.0%,停藥兩周后枸緣酸莫沙比利對(duì)照組第4周總有效率為37.9%,藥線治療組與羊腸線對(duì)照組相比較,P0.05,無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義;藥線治療組與口服枸緣酸莫沙比利對(duì)照組、羊腸線對(duì)照組與口服枸緣酸莫沙比利對(duì)照組相比較,P0.01有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義,提示藥線治療組與羊腸線對(duì)照組第4周療效比較無(wú)明顯差異,藥線治療組和羊腸線對(duì)照組第4周的總有效率明顯優(yōu)于口服枸緣酸莫沙比利對(duì)照組。3.第6周,治療組總有效率為96.8%,羊腸線對(duì)照組總有效率90.0%,停藥四周后的口服藥物對(duì)照組第6周總有效率為27.6%,藥線治療組與羊腸線對(duì)照組相比較,P0.05,藥線治療組與口服藥物對(duì)照組、羊腸線對(duì)照組與口服藥物對(duì)照組比較,均為P0.01,提示第6周治療組與羊腸線對(duì)照組總有效率無(wú)明顯差異,治療組與羊腸線對(duì)照組總有效率明顯優(yōu)于口服藥物對(duì)照組。4.癥狀評(píng)分方面,排便費(fèi)力度、排便時(shí)間癥狀評(píng)分,治療組在第2周、第4周、第6周與羊腸線對(duì)照組及枸緣酸莫沙比利對(duì)照組相比,均P0.05,有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義,提示治療組在第2周、第4周、第6周排便費(fèi)力度、排便時(shí)間上療效優(yōu)于羊場(chǎng)線對(duì)照組及枸緣酸莫沙比利對(duì)照組。余癥狀評(píng)分方面,藥線治療組與羊腸線對(duì)照組在第2周、第4周、第6周中,均為P0.05,無(wú)統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義。結(jié)論:藥線植入療法治療結(jié)腸慢傳輸便秘療效顯著,遠(yuǎn)期療效評(píng)價(jià),與羊腸線對(duì)照組相比無(wú)明顯差異,與口服藥物對(duì)照組相比差異明顯。癥狀改善方面,在排便費(fèi)力度和排便時(shí)間上,藥線植入療法優(yōu)于羊腸線對(duì)照組。
[Abstract]:Objective: to observe the clinical study of colonic slow transit constipation treated by drug line implantation. Methods: 92 patients with colonic slow transit constipation were randomly divided into drug therapy group, sheep intestinal line control group and oral moxapride citrate control group. There were 31 patients in the drug line group, 30 patients in the intestinal line control group and 29 patients in the oral mosapride citrate group. The drug line treatment group and the intestinal line control group were treated once, oral mosapride citrate group for 2 weeks. The symptom scores and the total effective rate of the three groups were observed before, 2, 4 and 6 weeks after treatment. The result is 1: 1. In the second week, the symptoms of the three groups were improved compared with those of the control group, the control group and the mosapride citrate group. The total effective rate of the drug line treatment group was 96.8um, the total effective rate of the sheep intestine line control group was 90.0 and the total effective rate of the oral moxapride citrate group was 86.2p 0.05. There was no significant difference between the three groups at the 2nd week. At the 4th week, the total effective rate of the treatment group was 96.8g, the total effective rate of the control group was 90.0 and the total effective rate of moxapride citrate was 37.9% in the control group two weeks after the withdrawal of the drug. There was no significant difference between the treatment group and the control group (P 0.05). There was significant difference between the drug line group and the oral moxapride citrate control group, the sheep intestinal line control group and the oral moxapride citrate control group, which indicated that there was no significant difference between the drug line treatment group and the sheep intestinal line control group at the 4th week. The total effective rate of the drug line therapy group and the sheep intestinal line control group was significantly better than that of the oral moxapride citrate group. 3. At the 6th week, the total effective rate in the treatment group was 96.8, the total effective rate in the control group was 90.0, the total effective rate in the oral drug control group after four weeks was 27.60.The total effective rate in the drug line treatment group was higher than that in the sheep intestine line control group, and that in the drug line treatment group was higher than that in the sheep intestinal line control group, and the drug line treatment group and the oral drug control group. Compared with the oral drug control group, the total effective rate of the treatment group and the control group was not significantly different at the 6th week, and the total effective rate of the treatment group and the control group was significantly better than that of the oral drug control group. Symptom score, defecation fee, defecation time symptom score, the treatment group in the 2nd week, 4th week, 6th week, compared with the control group of intestinal line and moxapride citrate control group, all have statistical significance, suggesting that the treatment group in the second week, In the 4th week, the 6th week, the defecation cost and the defecation time were better than those of the sheep farm line control group and the moxapride citrate control group. The scores of residual symptoms in the treatment group and the control group were all P0.05 in the 2nd week, 4th week and 6th week, with no statistical significance. Conclusion: the treatment of colonic slow transit constipation with drug thread implantation has a significant effect. The long-term curative effect evaluation has no significant difference compared with the control group of sheep's intestinal line, and the difference is obvious compared with the oral drug control group. In the improvement of symptoms, the drug line implantation therapy was superior to the control group in defecation cost and defecation time.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：云南中醫(yī)學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號(hào)】：R256.35

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 余波,刁本恕;藥線灸治療頭痛的臨證體會(huì)[J];四川中醫(yī);2002年02期

2 傅俊媚;孟延兵;林俊曉;;藥線埋藏減肥法療效觀察[J];亞太傳統(tǒng)醫(yī)藥;2012年06期

3 劉敏,羅文利;藥線灸治療中醫(yī)痹證75例[J];成都中醫(yī)藥大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2001年02期

4 甘文魁;魏海林;;溫腎壯骨湯配合藥線點(diǎn)灸治療老年膝關(guān)節(jié)骨性關(guān)節(jié)炎60例[J];中國(guó)中醫(yī)急癥;2010年08期

5 黃桂芳,胡小年,康曉春;治癇藥線的工藝研究[J];湖南中醫(yī)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1997年01期

6 姜興鵬,陳春梅,陳偉;薄氏腹穴藥線植入消脂減肥法臨床應(yīng)用50例[J];中國(guó)民間療法;2005年06期

7 陳平國(guó);羅文軒;郭健;黃桂明;齊亮;;藥線植入治療腰椎間盤突出癥的臨床觀察[J];中醫(yī)藥導(dǎo)報(bào);2011年12期

8 張海華;藥線點(diǎn)灸治療手足部扭腫痛[J];按摩與導(dǎo)引;1994年01期

9 張勝?gòu)?qiáng),楊明華,姚曉敏,荻斌;四環(huán)素控釋藥線的研究[J];中國(guó)藥科大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);1998年01期

10 殷昭紅;藥線點(diǎn)灸治療感冒后咳嗽59例[J];中國(guó)民族民間醫(yī)藥雜志;1999年06期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前6條

1 劉明照;;藥線點(diǎn)灸治病經(jīng)驗(yàn)淺談[A];第四次全國(guó)民間傳統(tǒng)診療技術(shù)與驗(yàn)方整理研究學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)論文集[C];2011年

2 徐成文;徐愛(ài)龍;徐愛(ài)民;徐如恩;;祖?zhèn)魉幘�灸療的藥方及應(yīng)用[A];重慶市中醫(yī)藥學(xué)會(huì)2011年學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)論文集[C];2011年

3 管仲安;徐華;;藥線在痔漏的應(yīng)用[A];第十五屆中國(guó)中西醫(yī)結(jié)合大腸肛門病學(xué)術(shù)交流會(huì)議論文集萃[C];2012年

4 張存志;秦恒斌;張瑞君;邸力強(qiáng);曹瑞芳;;磁化中藥線經(jīng)穴植入治療早期糖尿病腎病對(duì)β_2-MG、α_1-MG、uAIb、uIgG水平的影響[A];全國(guó)中西醫(yī)結(jié)合內(nèi)分泌代謝病學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議論文匯編[C];2006年

5 林修森;;瘡瘍外治之獨(dú)特劑型—藥線[A];第十三次全國(guó)中西醫(yī)結(jié)合瘍科學(xué)術(shù)交流會(huì)論文匯編[C];2007年

6 孔立紅;周紅娟;杜艷軍;孫國(guó)杰;葉煜婉;崔常香;周華;;穴位埋藥線對(duì)局灶性腦缺血再灌注大鼠皮質(zhì)區(qū)MMP-9的影響[A];中國(guó)針炙學(xué)會(huì)經(jīng)絡(luò)分會(huì)第十屆學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議論文集[C];2009年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前3條

1 孫玉慶;壯醫(yī)的藥線點(diǎn)灸療法[N];醫(yī)藥養(yǎng)生保健報(bào);2004年

2 ;浸曬藥線穴位埋植治療萎縮性胃炎[N];中國(guó)中醫(yī)藥報(bào);2003年

3 費(fèi)振鐘;藥器小識(shí)[N];中國(guó)中醫(yī)藥報(bào);2004年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 覃蔚嵐;藥線灸法結(jié)合電針治療非癡呆型血管性認(rèn)知障礙的臨床與機(jī)制研究[D];北京中醫(yī)藥大學(xué);2016年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 齊煥青;藥線植入療法治療結(jié)腸慢傳輸便秘的臨床研究[D];云南中醫(yī)學(xué)院;2016年

2 亓明華;藥線結(jié)扎法治療痔的臨床研究[D];山東中醫(yī)藥大學(xué);2010年

3 楊榮美;穴位植入川芎嗪藥線對(duì)腦缺血再灌注大鼠皮質(zhì)區(qū)MMP-9、TIMP-1的影響[D];湖北中醫(yī)藥大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號(hào)：2199089