摘要
目的:观察壮药骨痹方烫熨联合运动疗法治疗膝骨关节炎的临床疗效。方法:将60例膝骨关节炎患者随机分为4组,每组15例,分别采用壮药骨痹方烫熨联合运动疗法、运动疗法、口服双氯芬酸钠联合运动疗法、壮药骨痹方烫熨治疗。分别于治疗前、治疗2周后及治疗8周后,记录并比较4组患者徒手肌力检查(manual muscle testing,MMT)评分和美国膝关节协会评分(knee society score,KSS)。结果:治疗前后不同时间点间MMT评分比较,差异有统计学意义,存在时间效应(F=5.068,P=0.004);4组患者MMT评分比较,组间差异有统计学意义,存在分组效应(F=2.086,P=0.033);治疗前4组患者MMT评分比较,组间差异无统计学意义[(70.0±16.9)分,(70.0±19.4)分,(71.7±16.0)分,(71.7±18.6)分,F=2.086,P=0.100];治疗2周后和治疗8周后,壮药骨痹方烫熨联合运动疗法组MMT评分均高于运动疗法组、口服双氯芬酸钠联合运动疗法组、壮药骨痹方烫熨组[(90.0±12.7)分,(88.0±14.8)分,(88.3±12.9)分,(86.1±13.4)分,F=3.846,P=0.014;(95.0±10.4)分,(90.0±10.4)分,(91.3±11.4)分,(88.3±14.8)分,F=12.570,P=0.000];时间因素和分组因素存在交互效应(F=5.016,P=0.002)。治疗前后不同时间点间KSS评分比较,差异有统计学意义,存在时间效应(F=53.860,P=0.000);4组患者KSS评分比较,组间差异有统计学意义,存在分组效应(F=528.816,P=0.000);治疗前4组患者KSS评分比较,组间差异无统计学意义[(144.0±5.6)分,(143.0±6.3)分,(144.0±5.7)分,(143.0±6.1)分,F=0.048,P=0.986];治疗2周后和治疗8周后,壮药骨痹方烫熨联合运动疗法组KSS评分均高于运动疗法组、口服双氯芬酸钠联合运动疗法组、壮药骨痹方烫熨组[(253.0±5.5)分,(238.0±6.8)分,(243.0±5.7)分,(233.0±6.0)分,F=528.816,P=0.000;(263.0±5.7)分,(234.0±6.5)分,(234.0±3.7)分,(225.0±6.6)分,F=125.620,P=0.000];时间因素和分组因素存在交互效应(F=5.008,P=0.002)。结论:壮药骨痹方烫熨联合运动疗法治�
Objective：To observe the curative effect of hot compressing and rubbing with packet of a sort of ZHUANG drug named Gu-bi Fang（骨痹方,GBF）combined with exercise therapy in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis（KOA）.Method：Sixty patients with KOA were randomly divided into 4 groups,15 cases in each group.The patients were treated with the combination of hot compressing and rubbing with packet of GBF and exercise therapy（GBF and exercise group）,exercise monotherapy（exercise group）,combination of oral administra-tion of diclofenac sodium and exercise therapy（DFN and exercise group）and monotherapy of hot compressing and rubbing with packet of GBF（GBF group）respectively.Manual muscle testing（MMT）score and American knee society score（KSS）of the 4 groups were recorded and compared with each other before the treatment,at 2 and 8 weeks after the treatment respectively.Results：There was statistical differ-ence in MMT score between different time points,in other words,there was time effect（F =5.068,P =0.004）.There was statistical differ-ence in MMT score between the 4 groups,in other words,there was grouping effect（F =2.086,P =0.033）.No statistical difference was found between the 4 groups in MMT score before the treatment（70.0 ＋/-16.9,70.0 ＋/-19.4,71.7 ＋/-16.0,71.7 ＋/-18.6 points,F =2.086,P =0.100）.At 2 and 8 weeks after the treatment,MMT score was higher in GBF and exercise group compared to exercise group, DFN and exercise group and GBF group（90.0 ＋/-12.7,88.0 ＋/-14.8,88.3 ＋/-12.9,86.1 ＋/-13.4 points,F =3.846,P =0.014;95.0 ＋/-10.4,90.0 ＋/-10.4,91.3 ＋/-11.4,88.3 ＋/-14.8 points,F =12.570,P =0.000）,and there was interaction between time fac-tor and grouping factor（F =5.016,P =0.002）.There was statistical difference in KSS between different time points,in other words,there was time effect（F =53.860,P =0.000）.There was statistical difference in KSS between the 4 groups,in other words,there was grouping effect（F =528.816,P =0.000）.No sta
出处
《中医正骨》
2015年第7期27-30,共4页
The Journal of Traditional Chinese Orthopedics and Traumatology
基金
华中科技大学自主创新基金项目(2014QN070)
关键词
骨关节炎
膝
壮药
熨法
运动疗法
治疗
临床研究性
osteoarthritis,knee
ZHUANG DRUGS
hot packet therapy
exercise therapy
therapies,investigational
