摘要
目的观察毫火针治疗网球肘的临床疗效。方法将80例网球肘患者随机分为毫火针组30例、封闭组20例和电针组30例,分别于治疗1星期、2星期及1个月后进行VAS疼痛计分法评定;并对治疗后1个月疗效进行对比观察。结果毫火针组、封闭组及电针组总有效率分别为93.3%、60.0%、50.0%,3组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),毫火针组与封闭组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),毫火针组与电针组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.01),封闭组与电针组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。治疗后1星期封闭组VAS评分均较治疗前明显降低(P<0.05),但毫火针组和电针组VAS评分均较治疗前无明显改善(P>0.05);治疗后2星期毫火针组和封闭组VAS评分均较治疗前明显降低(P<0.05),但电针组VAS评分均较治疗前无明显改善(P>0.05),毫火针组和封闭组VAS评分比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),毫火针组和封闭组VAS评分与电针组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);毫火针组和封闭组治疗后1个月VAS评分与治疗前比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05),电针组差异也有统计学意义(P<0.05),毫火针组VAS评分与封闭组、电针组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),封闭组VAS评分与电针组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。研究结果显示,毫火针疗法、局部药物封闭及电针治疗网球肘均有较好的临床疗效,对患者的症状有较好的改善作用,毫火针疗法疗效显著,且优于封闭疗法及电针治疗。结论毫火针疗法是一种治疗网球肘确实有效的方法。
Objective To investigate the clinical therapeutic effect of filiform fire needling on tennis elbow.Method Eighty patients with tennis elbow were randomly allocated to a filiform fire needling group of 30 cases, a block group of 20 cases and an electroacupuncture group of 30 cases. The treatment group received. Pain severity was scored using the VAS after one and two weeks and one month of treatment. The therapeutic effects were evaluated and compared after one month of treatment.Result The total efficacy rate was 93.3% in the filiform fire needling group, 60.0% in the block group and 50.0% in the electroacupuncture group; there was a statistically significant difference among the three groups （P〈0.05）. There was a statistically significant difference between the filiform fire needling and block groups （P〈0.05） and between the filiform fire needling and electroacupuncture groups （P〈0.05） but no significant difference between the block and electroacupuncture groups （P〉0.05）. The VAS score decreased significantly in the block group （P〈0.05） but did not in the filiform fire needling and electroacupuncture groups （P〉0.05） after one week of treatment compared with before. The VAS score decreased significantly in the filiform fire needling and block groups （P〈0.05） but did not in the electroacupuncture group （P〉0.05） after two weeks of treatment compared with before. There was no statistically significant posttreatment difference in the VAS score between the filiform fire needling and block groups （P〉0.05） but there was such a difference between the filiform fire needling or block group and the electroacupuncture group （P〈0.05）. There was a statistically significant difference in the VAS score in the filiform fire needling and block groups （P〈0.01） and also in the electroacupuncture group （P〈0.05） between before and after one month of treatment. There was a statistically significant difference in the VAS score after one month of treatment between th
出处
《上海针灸杂志》
2015年第2期161-163,共3页
Shanghai Journal of Acupuncture and Moxibustion
关键词
火针疗法
电针
网球肘
肱骨外上髁炎
Fire needling therapy
Electroacupuncture
Tennis elbow
External humeral epicondylitis
