| 汪鑫,徐珑.静态渐进性牵伸技术联合肌肉能量技术在创伤后肘关节僵硬康复治疗中的应用[J].中国康复,2020,35(8):409-412 |
| 静态渐进性牵伸技术联合肌肉能量技术在创伤后肘关节僵硬康复治疗中的应用 |
| Application of Static Progressive Stretch combined with Muscle Energy Technique in the Rehabilitation of Posttraumatic Stiff Elbow |
| |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 创伤后肘关节僵硬 肌肉能量技术 静态渐进性牵伸技术 |
| 英文关键词: posttraumatic stiff elbow muscle energy technique static progressive stretch |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 6541 |
| 全文下载次数: 4115 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的：观察静态渐进性牵伸技术（SPS）联合肌肉能量技术（MET）对创伤后肘关节僵硬康复的影响。方法：将符合纳入标准的创伤后肘关节僵硬患者78例按照随机数字表法分为对照组和观察组各39例，2组均接受常规康复疗法，包括运动治疗、关节松动术、物理因子治疗、中药熏洗、作业治疗，对照组在常规治疗基础上仅给予SPS治疗,研究组在常规治疗基础上给予SPS技术和MET联合治疗。2组治疗前后进行肘关节AROM，视觉模拟评分法（VAS），HSS肘关节功能评分，改良Bathel 指数（MBI），一般自我效能感量表（GSES）对患者治疗前后肘关节功能进行评价。结果：治疗前，2组患者AROM、VAS、HHS、MBI及GSES评分组间比较差异均无统计学意义。治疗4周后，2组患者肘关节AROM和HHS评分均较治疗前明显提高（均P＜0.01）,且观察组明显高于对照组（均P＜0.05）；2组患者肘关节VAS评分均较治疗前明显降低（P＜0.01）,且观察组明显低于对照组（P＜0.05）。治疗后，2组患者MBI评分均较治疗前明显提高（P＜0.01）,但2组间比较差异无统计学意义；治疗4周后，2组患者GSES评分均较治疗前明显提高（P＜0.01）,且观察组明显高于对照组（P＜0.05）。结论：MET联合SPS治疗能更好的改善肘关节的功能障碍，尤其是在缓解疼痛和改善肘关节主动活动度方面具有明显的效果，同时有助于提高患者自我效能感。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective: To observe the effect of muscle energy technique (MET) combined with static progressive stretch (SPS) on the elbow function in patient with posttraumatic stiff elbow. Methods: Seventy-eight posttraumatic stiff elbow patients were randomized into control group and experiment group with 39 cases in each group. Both groups received the same conventional rehabilitation treatments including exercise therapy, mobilization, occupational therapy, physical factor therapy and Chinese medicine fumigation for 4 weeks. Control group was treated by SPS on the basis of conventional therapy, and treatment group was treated by MET combined with SPS on the basis of conventional therapy. The active range of movement (AROM), visual analogue scale (VAS), hospital for special surgery (HSS), modified barthel index (MBI), general self efficacy scale (GSES) were measured before and after 4 weeks of treatment. Results: Compared with before treatment, both groups had significant improvement on AROM, HHS, MBI and GSES (all P<0.01), and the scores of VAS were decreased when compared with those before treatment (P<0.01). After treatment, the experiment group had significant improvement on AROM, HHS and GSES (all P<0.05) as compared with the control group, and the VAS scores were lower in the treatment group than those in the control group (P<0.05). Conclusion: Muscle energy technique combined with static progressive stretch might be more effective to improve function performance and self efficacy of posttraumatic stiff elbow patients. |
|
查看全文
下载PDF阅读器 HTML全文 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
