摘要
【目的】观察穴位埋线治疗抑郁性神经症的疗效。【方法】将47例抑郁性神经症患者随机分为埋线组(25例)和百忧解组(22例)。百忧解组每天口服百忧解20 mg,埋线组10 d埋线1次,两组共治疗3个月。将汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)的减分率作为疗效评定标准,分别于治疗前和治疗结束时观察HAMD的总分和7类因子分值的变化情况及临床总体印象量表(CGI-SI)的变化情况。【结果】两组对抑郁性神经症的临床疗效无明显差异(P>0.05)。各组HAMD总分和7类因子分值均较治疗前有明显降低(P<0.05或P<0.01),在总分和焦虑/躯体化及睡眠改善方面,埋线组较百忧解组有显著性差异(P<0.01)。CGI-SI评分结果显示,两组疾病严重程度(SI)、疾病改善情况(GI)均无显著性差异(P>0.05),埋线组的疗效指数(EI)明显高于百忧解组(P<0.01)。【结论】埋线治疗抑郁性神经症具有显著的临床疗效,避免了药物的副作用,能够对机体进行整体调节,不失为理想的治疗方法。
Objective To observe the therapeutic effect of catgut-embedding therapy（CET） for depressive neurosis.Methods Forty-seven depressive neurosis patients were randomized into two groups： CET group（N=25） received CET,once every 10 days,and Prozac group（N=22） received oral use of Prozac 20mg,qd.The treatment lasted 3 months.The Hamilton Depression Scale（HAMD） score was used as the evaluation criteria of therapeutic effect.The total score of HAMD and the score of seven HAMD factors as well as the score of clinical general impression scale（CGI-SI） were observed before and after treatment.Results The difference of the general therapeutic effect was insignificant between the two groups（P〉0.05）.HAMD total score and the score of seven HAMD factors were lowered in the two groups after treatment（P〈0.01 or P〈0.05 compared with those before treatment）.The improvement of the HAMD total score,anxiety/somatization,and sleep in CET group was superior to that in Prozac group（P〈0.01）.The results of CGI-SI scoring showed that the severity and relief of depressive neurosis in CET group was similar to those in Prozac group（P〉0.05）,but CET group had a higher efficacy index（P〈0.01）.Conclusion CET exerts a certain effect on depressive neurosis,and it is a good therapy without the side effect of the medicine.
出处
《广州中医药大学学报》
CAS
2009年第1期38-41,共4页
Journal of Guangzhou University of Traditional Chinese Medicine
关键词
抑郁性神经症/穴位疗法
埋藏疗法
穴
百会
穴
三阴交
DEPRESSIVE NEUROSIS/acupoint therapy
EMBEDDING THERAPY
POINT GV20（BAIHUI）
POINT SP6（SANYINJIAO）
