| Objective: To observe the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave in the treatment of shock patients with shoulder hand syndrome by comparing with ultrasonic treatment. Methods: Sixty shock patients with shoulder-hand syndrome were randomly divided into extracorporeal shock wave treatment group (experimental group, 30 cases) and ultrasonic treatment group (control group, 30 cases). In addition, the two groups were given conventional rehabilitation training including therapeutic-exercise, occupational therapy, non-modulated medium frequency electrotherapy, intermittent pneumatic compression therapy, and acupuncture treatment. Experimental group received conventional rehabilitation training on the basis of extracorporeal shock wave therapy, and the control group received ultrasound treatment on the basis of these conventional rehabilitations. The visual analog scale (VAS) and Fugl-Meyer upper limb movement function (FAM) scores before and 1, 2 and 4 weeks after treatment, and total effective rate after treatment for 4 weeks were compared between two groups. Results: The VAS scores in the two groups showed no statistically significant differences before and 1 and 2 weeks after treatment, but after treatment for 4 weeks, the VAS scores were significantly increased in the two groups, and those in the experimental group were significantly lower than those in control group (P<0.05). The FAM scores in the two groups showed no statistically significant differences before and 1 and 2 weeks after treatment, while the FAM scores in the extracorporeal shock wave treatment group were obviously higher than those in the ultrasonic treatment group after treatment for 4 weeks (P<0.05). At the same time, the total efficacy in the experimental group was obviously higher than that in the control group after treatment for 4 weeks (93.3% vs.76.7%, P<0.05). Conclusion: The extracorporeal shock wave therapy can alleviate the symptoms in stroke patients with shoulder-hand syndrome, promote upper limb functional recovery, and the curative effect is better than that of ultrasonic treatment. |
