CAJ | 학술논문

目的对比观察氦-氖激光穴位照射与常规药物治疗慢性结肠炎腹泻(CCD)的效果.方法将200例CCD患者分为氦-氖激光穴位照射组(激光组)和常规药物治疗组(对照组),每组100例.激光组采用氦-氖激光耦合光纤照射神厥、双侧天枢和大肠俞穴,功率密度为478 mW/cm2,每穴照射10 min,每日1次,10 d为1个疗程.对照组常规应用抗生素、收敛止泻药、解痉镇痛药、维生素及中药灌肠等治疗.2组患者治疗结束均行纤维结肠镜及粪便常规镜检复查,治疗后3个月来院复查评定疗效.结果激光组近期治愈66例(66%),好转27例(27%),无效7例(7%);对照组近期治愈33例(33%),好转43例(43%),无效24例(24%),2组疗效比较差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01).疗效分析表明,2组均以病程短者疗效较好;激光组以病变位于远端结肠段疗效较好,对照组不同病变部位对疗效无明显影响;激光组平均总治疗天数及近期治愈和好转平均天数均比对照组缩短2～3倍(P＜0.01);激光组近期治愈患者的腹泻和腹痛消失平均天数均比对照组缩短2倍以上(P＜0.01).结论氦-氖激光穴位照射治疗CCD疗效优于常规药物治疗,具有明显的收敛止泻和解痉镇痛的作用.
목적 대비관찰양-내격광혈위조사여상규약물치료만성결장염복사(CCD)적효과.방법 장200례CCD환자분위양-내격광혈위조사조(격광조)화상규약물치료조(대조조),매조100례.격광조채용양-내격광우합광섬조사신궐、쌍측천추화대장유혈,공솔밀도위478 mW/cm2,매혈조사10 min,매일1차,10 d위1개료정.대조조상규응용항생소、수렴지사약、해경진통약、유생소급중약관장등치료.2조환자치료결속균행섬유결장경급분편상규경검복사,치료후3개월래원복사평정료효.결과 격광조근기치유66례(66%),호전27례(27%),무효7례(7%);대조조근기치유33례(33%),호전43례(43%),무효24례(24%),2조료효비교차이유통계학의의(P＜0.01).료효분석표명,2조균이병정단자료효교호;격광조이병변위우원단결장단료효교호,대조조불동병변부위대료효무명현영향;격광조평균총치료천수급근기치유화호전평균천수균비대조조축단2～3배(P＜0.01);격광조근기치유환자적복사화복통소실평균천수균비대조조축단2배이상(P＜0.01).결론 양-내격광혈위조사치료CCD료효우우상규약물치료,구유명현적수렴지사화해경진통적작용.
Objective To compare the effect of treating chronic colonitis diarrhea (CCD) using He-Ne laser irradiation of acupoints with routine drug treatment. Methods Two hundred patients with CCD were randomly divided into a laser irradiation group (laser group) and a routine drug treatment group (control group) with 100 patients in each group. The laser group patients were treated with a He-Ne laser ( power density 478 mW/cm2 )through coupling fiberoptic cable radiating onto the Shenque (REN8) , bilateral Tianshu (ST25) and Dachangshu (BL25) acupoints, each for 10 min daily for 10 days. Control group patients were treated with routine drugs such as antibiotics, astringents, antidiarrheals, antispasmodic analgesics, vitamins and Chinese herbal enemas. Three months after treatment the patients were examined by fibercoloscope to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy in the two groups. Results In the laser group 66 cases (66%) experienced a short-term cure, 27 cases (27%) improved and7 cases (7%) showed no effect. In the control group 33 cases (33%) were short-term cures, 43 cases (43%) improved and 24 cases (24%) had no effect. These differences were statistically significant. In both groups the effects for patients with short histories was better than for those with longer histories. In the laser group the pathological changes in the distal colon were significantly better than in the proximal colon, but this difference wasn't significant in the control group. The average days of total treatment to achieve short-term cure and improvement in the laser group were significantly less than in the control group. In the laser group the average days to the disappearance of abdominal pain and diarrhea in the short-term cure patients of was significantly fewer than in the control group. Conclusions Laser irradiation was more effective than routine drug treatment, especially for stopping diarrhea, spasmolysis and analgia.