大众科技
大衆科技
대음과기
DAZHONG KEJI
2013年
8期
73-75
,共3页
补阳还五汤%空气波压力治疗仪%前列腺素E1%糖尿病高危足%糖尿病足0级
補暘還五湯%空氣波壓力治療儀%前列腺素E1%糖尿病高危足%糖尿病足0級
보양환오탕%공기파압력치료의%전렬선소E1%당뇨병고위족%당뇨병족0급
Yang supplementing five returning decoction%air wave pressure treatment%prostaglandin E1%the high risk of diabetes foot%Diabetic foot 0
目的:观察补阳还五汤联合空气波压力治疗仪治疗糖尿病高危足的临床疗效。方法:112例糖尿病足0级病变患者随机分为治疗组53例和对照组49例,均进行常规基础治疗,治疗组加用补阳还五汤联合空气波压力治疗仪治疗,对照组加用前列腺素E1治疗。4周后评价、总结疗效。结果:治疗组显效25例(47.2%),良好14例(26.4%),改善8例(15.1%),无效6(11.3%)例,总有效率88.7%;对照组显效7例(14.3%),良好10例(20.4%),改善27例(55.1%),无效5例(10.2%),总有效率为89.8%。两组总有效率比较差异无显著性(P>0.05),但治疗组显效率高于对照组,差异有显著性(P<0.05)。结论:补阳还五汤联合空气波压力治疗仪治疗糖尿病高危足疗效确切,适于临床推广应用。
目的:觀察補暘還五湯聯閤空氣波壓力治療儀治療糖尿病高危足的臨床療效。方法:112例糖尿病足0級病變患者隨機分為治療組53例和對照組49例,均進行常規基礎治療,治療組加用補暘還五湯聯閤空氣波壓力治療儀治療,對照組加用前列腺素E1治療。4週後評價、總結療效。結果:治療組顯效25例(47.2%),良好14例(26.4%),改善8例(15.1%),無效6(11.3%)例,總有效率88.7%;對照組顯效7例(14.3%),良好10例(20.4%),改善27例(55.1%),無效5例(10.2%),總有效率為89.8%。兩組總有效率比較差異無顯著性(P>0.05),但治療組顯效率高于對照組,差異有顯著性(P<0.05)。結論:補暘還五湯聯閤空氣波壓力治療儀治療糖尿病高危足療效確切,適于臨床推廣應用。
목적:관찰보양환오탕연합공기파압력치료의치료당뇨병고위족적림상료효。방법:112례당뇨병족0급병변환자수궤분위치료조53례화대조조49례,균진행상규기출치료,치료조가용보양환오탕연합공기파압력치료의치료,대조조가용전렬선소E1치료。4주후평개、총결료효。결과:치료조현효25례(47.2%),량호14례(26.4%),개선8례(15.1%),무효6(11.3%)례,총유효솔88.7%;대조조현효7례(14.3%),량호10례(20.4%),개선27례(55.1%),무효5례(10.2%),총유효솔위89.8%。량조총유효솔비교차이무현저성(P>0.05),단치료조현효솔고우대조조,차이유현저성(P<0.05)。결론:보양환오탕연합공기파압력치료의치료당뇨병고위족료효학절,괄우림상추엄응용。
Objective: Observed yang supplementing five returning decoction joint air wave pressure therapy for the treatment of the high risk diabetic foot clinical efficacy. Method, 112 cases of diabetic O foot lesions were randomly divided into a treatment group of 53 patients and a control group of 49 patients underwent conventional basic therapy, treatment group yang supplementing five returning decoction joint air wave pressure therapy for the treatment group and control group were treated with prostaglandin E1 treatment. After 4 weeks, summarize the curative effect evaluation. Result, Treatment group, 25 cases (47.2%) Significant effect, 14 cases (26.4%) good, 8 cases (15.1%) improved, 6 cases (11.3%)no effect, the total effective rate was 88.7%; control group, 7 cases (14.3%)Significant effect, 10 cases (20.4%) good, 27 cases (55.1%) improved, ineffective in 5 cases (10.2%), the total effective rate was 89.8%. The total effective rate difference between two groups was not statistically significant (P>0.05), but compare to the control group, the efficiency of the treatment group was higher, the difference was significant (P<0.05). Conclusion:yang supplementing five returning decoction joint air wave pressure treatment curative treatment of high risk diabetic foot, suitable for clinical application wildly.