| 王方琪,岳昭娣,景珩,李玲玲,刘志遥,石鑫,黄海量.体外冲击波穴位冲击疗法治疗偏瘫肩痛的临床疗效[J].中国康复,2023,38(9):534-537 |
| 体外冲击波穴位冲击疗法治疗偏瘫肩痛的临床疗效 |
| Effect of extracorporeal shock wave acupoint shock therapy on hemiplegic shoulder pain |
| |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 卒中 肩痛 体外冲击波 |
| 英文关键词: stroke shoulder pain extracorporeal shock wave |
| 基金项目:2018年度山东省高等学校科研发展计划项目（J18KB130） |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 2215 |
| 全文下载次数: 2347 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的：观察体外冲击波穴位冲击疗法治疗偏瘫肩痛（HSP）的临床疗效。方法：选取符合标准的54例HSP患者，随机分为3组，每组各18例。对照组采用常规康复治疗，观察A组在对照组的基础上加用体外冲击波痛点治疗，观察B组在观察A组基础上加用体外冲击波穴位治疗。比较3组治疗前、治疗后和随访时的疼痛视觉模拟评分（VAS），上肢Fugl-Meyer运动功能评分（U-FMA），肩关节屈曲、外展和外旋无痛被动关节活动度（PROM）。结果：治疗后和随访时，3组的VAS评分均较治疗前降低（P＜0.05），U-FMA评分和屈曲、外展和外旋无痛PROM均较前治疗增高（P＜0.05）。治疗后，观察A组和观察B组的VAS评分低于对照组（P＜0.05），观察A组的屈曲无痛PROM和观察B组的屈曲、外展无痛PROM高于对照组（P＜0.05）。随访时，观察A组和观察B组的VAS评分低于对照组（P＜0.05），且观察B组的VAS评分低于观察A组（P＜0.05）；观察A组和观察B组的U-FMA评分高于对照组（P＜0.05）；观察A组和观察B组的屈曲、外展无痛PROM高于对照组（P＜0.05），观察B组的屈曲、外展、外旋无痛PROM高于观察A组（P＜0.05）。结论：传统的体外冲击波疗法和体外冲击波穴位冲击疗法都有利于HSP患者的疼痛程度、肩关节无痛PROM和上肢运动功能改善，体外冲击波穴位冲击疗法疗效更优。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective: To observe the effect of extracorporeal shock wave acupoint shock therapy on hemiplegic shoulder pain (HSP). Methods: A total of 54 HSP patients who met the standards were selected and randomly divided into 3 groups with 18 cases each. The control group was treated with routine rehabilitation therapy, the observation group A was treated with extracorporeal shock wave pain point therapy, and the observation group B was treated with extracorporeal shock wave acupoint shock therapy on the basis of the observation group A. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Upper Limb Fugl Meyer Motor Function Assessment (U-FMA) and pain-free Passive Joint Range of Motion (PROM) of shoulder flexion, abduction, and external rotation were compared among the three groups before treatment, after treatment, and during the follow-up period. Results: After treatment and during follow-up, the VAS scores in three groups were lower than those before treatment (P<0.05). U-FMA scores and pain-free PROM of flexion, abduction and external rotation were higher than those before treatment (P<0.05). After treatment, the VAS scores in the observation group A and observation group B were lower than those in the control group (P<0.05), the pain-free PROM of flexion in the observation group A and pain-free PROM of flexion and abduction in the observation group B were higher than those in the control group (P<0.05). During the follow-up period, the VAS scores in the observation group A and observation group B were lower than those in the control group (P<0.05), and those in the observation group B were lower than those in the observation group A (P<0.05). The U-FMA scores in the observation group A and observation group B were higher than those in the control group (P<0.05). The pain-free PROM of flexion and abduction in the observation group A and observation group B was higher than that in the control group (P<0.05), and that of flexion, abduction and external rotation in the observation group B was higher than in the observation group A (P<0.05). Conclusion: Both traditional extracorporeal shock wave therapy and extracorporeal shock wave acupoint therapy are beneficial to the improvement of pain degree, pain-free PROM of shoulder joint and motor function of upper limb in patients with HSP, and the effect of extracorporeal shock wave acupoint therapy is better. |
|
查看全文
下载PDF阅读器 HTML全文 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
