引用本文
  •    [点击复制]
  •    [点击复制]
PDF HTML全文阅读
本文已被:浏览 2845次   下载 1578 本文二维码信息
码上扫一扫!
DSA 下电外科能量平台联合针刀治疗跟痛症的临床观察
李远栋,王平,张晓宇,刘爱峰,苏瑾,李嘉钰
天津中医药大学第一附属医院骨伤科(天津 300383)
摘要:
目的:探讨 DSA 下电外科能量平台联合针刀治疗跟痛症的临床疗效及安全性。方法:收集跟痛症患者 74 例,随机数字表法分为治疗组与对照组各 37 例,两组均在 DSA 下治疗,治疗组给予电外科能量平台联合针刀治疗,对照组予以针刀治疗,均每周治疗 1 次,共治疗 2 次,并于治疗后 3 个月时进行随访。比较两组治疗前、治疗后及随访时足跟痛 VAS 评分、足功能 Maryland 评分及总有效率。结果:VAS 与 Maryland 评分,治疗组治疗前分别为(6.95±1.14)分与(50.70±8.34)分,治疗后分别为(2.45±1.33)分与(70.46±8.97)分,随访时分别为(1.91±1.01)分与(78.46±7.65);对照组治疗前分别为(6.35±1.34)分与(50.52±9.76)分,治疗后分别为(3.16±1.82)分与(65.21±9.78)分,随访时分别为(2.12±1.44)分与(70.32±7.85)分。两组内治疗后及随访时的 VAS 与 Maryland 评分与治疗前比较,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05); 两组间治疗前 VAS 与 Maryland 评分比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);两组间治疗后及随访时 VAS 与 Maryland 评分比较,治疗组优于对照组(P<0.05)。治疗组治疗后与随访时总有效率均为 97%,对照组总有效率分别为 91% 与 75%。治疗组总有效率均优于对照组(P<0.05,P<0.01)。两组均无不良反应发生。结论:DSA 下电外科能量平台联合针刀治疗跟痛症,疗效显著,安全性高,作用更持久。
关键词:  跟痛症  电外科能量平台  针刀  疗效观察
DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1007-6948.2019.04.025
基金项目:天津市科委青年项目(15JCQNJC12700); 王平劳模创新工作室 - 天津市教委资助项目(津教工〔2016〕3 号);中医传承工作室 - 天津卫计委资助项目(津卫中〔2017〕193 号);天津中医药大学第一附属医院“拓新工程”课题(201908)
Clinical Observation of Electrosurgical Energy Platform Combined with Acupotomy in Treatment of Calcaneodynia under DSA
LI Yuan-dong,WANG Ping,ZHANG Xiao-yu,LIU Ai-feng,SU Jin,LI Jia-yu
Department of Orthopedics, First Af?liated Hospital of Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Tianjin (300383), China
Abstract:
Objective To investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of electrosurgical energy platform combined with acupotomy in the treatment of calcaneodynia under DSA. Methods The 74 patients with calcaneodynia were divided into treatment group and control group by random number table method, 37 cases in each group. Both groups were treated with DSA, electrosurgical energy platform combined with acupotomy was used into the treatment group, acupotomology was used into the control group, once a week, a total of twice, and the follow-up was conducted at 3 months after treatment. VAS score of heel pain, Maryland score of foot function and total effective rate were compared between the two groups before treatment, after treatment and at follow-up. Results In the treatment group, the VAS and Maryland scores were 6.95±1.14 and 50.70±8.34 before treatment, 2.45±1.33 and 70.46±8.97 after treatment and 1.91±1.01 and 78.46±7.65 during follow-up. In the control group, the VAS and Maryland scores were 6.35±1.34 and 50.52±9.76 before treatment, 3.16±1.82 and 65.21±9.78 after treatment, and 2.12±1.44 and 70.32±7.85 during follow-up. VAS and Maryland scores were significantly different between the two groups after treatment and during follow-up (P < 0 . 05 ). There was no significant difference between VAS and Maryland scores before treatment between the two groups (P > 0 . 05). VAS and Maryland scores were compared between the two groups after treatment and at follow-up, the treatment group was superior to the control group (P<0.05). The total effective rate of the treatment group was 97% after treatment and at follow-up, and that of the control group was 91% and 75%, respectively. The total effective rate of the treatment group was better than that of the control group (P <0.05, P < 0 . 01). No adverse reactions occurred in either group. Conclusion The electrosurgical energy platform combined with acupotomy in the treatment of calcaneodynia under DSA showed significant efficacy, high safety and more lasting effect.
Key words:  Calcaneodynia  electrosurgical energy platform  acupotomy  clinical observation

用微信扫一扫

用微信扫一扫