黑龙江医药
黑龍江醫藥
흑룡강의약
HEILONGJIANG MEDICAL JOURNAL
2013年
5期
849-850
,共2页
韩新臣%刘世育%何晓华%陈光侠
韓新臣%劉世育%何曉華%陳光俠
한신신%류세육%하효화%진광협
复方苦参%热疗%消化道肿瘤%疗效
複方苦參%熱療%消化道腫瘤%療效
복방고삼%열료%소화도종류%료효
Composite radix sophorae flavescentis%Ther-motherapy%The digestive tumor%Curative effect
目的:观察复方苦参联合体外高频热疗治疗晚期消化道肿瘤患者的临床疗效。方法:治疗组:采用体外高频热疗机进行局部肿瘤部位照射,隔日1次,1次60-120 min,10次为一疗程,复方苦参注射液50 m1加入0.9%生理盐水250ml中静滴,1次/d,20d为一疗程。对照组:仅静滴复方苦参注射液,剂量、用法及疗程同治疗组。结果:①两组癌性疼痛疗效比较,治疗组完全缓解2例、明显缓解25例、轻度缓解10例、无效4例,有效率为65.8%;对照组有效率为40.0%,两组相比有统计学差异(P≤0.05)。②两组生存质量比较,治疗组显效7例、有效26例、无效8例,有效率为80.4%;对照组有效率为55.0%,两组有统计学差异(P≤0.05)。③两组体质量变化比较,治疗组体质量降低率低于对照组(P≤0.01)。结论:治疗组近期缓解率、生存质量及缓解癌痛均优于对照组,提示复方苦参注射液联合热疗较单纯应用复方苦参注射液能使较多患者临床受益。
目的:觀察複方苦參聯閤體外高頻熱療治療晚期消化道腫瘤患者的臨床療效。方法:治療組:採用體外高頻熱療機進行跼部腫瘤部位照射,隔日1次,1次60-120 min,10次為一療程,複方苦參註射液50 m1加入0.9%生理鹽水250ml中靜滴,1次/d,20d為一療程。對照組:僅靜滴複方苦參註射液,劑量、用法及療程同治療組。結果:①兩組癌性疼痛療效比較,治療組完全緩解2例、明顯緩解25例、輕度緩解10例、無效4例,有效率為65.8%;對照組有效率為40.0%,兩組相比有統計學差異(P≤0.05)。②兩組生存質量比較,治療組顯效7例、有效26例、無效8例,有效率為80.4%;對照組有效率為55.0%,兩組有統計學差異(P≤0.05)。③兩組體質量變化比較,治療組體質量降低率低于對照組(P≤0.01)。結論:治療組近期緩解率、生存質量及緩解癌痛均優于對照組,提示複方苦參註射液聯閤熱療較單純應用複方苦參註射液能使較多患者臨床受益。
목적:관찰복방고삼연합체외고빈열료치료만기소화도종류환자적림상료효。방법:치료조:채용체외고빈열료궤진행국부종류부위조사,격일1차,1차60-120 min,10차위일료정,복방고삼주사액50 m1가입0.9%생리염수250ml중정적,1차/d,20d위일료정。대조조:부정적복방고삼주사액,제량、용법급료정동치료조。결과:①량조암성동통료효비교,치료조완전완해2례、명현완해25례、경도완해10례、무효4례,유효솔위65.8%;대조조유효솔위40.0%,량조상비유통계학차이(P≤0.05)。②량조생존질량비교,치료조현효7례、유효26례、무효8례,유효솔위80.4%;대조조유효솔위55.0%,량조유통계학차이(P≤0.05)。③량조체질량변화비교,치료조체질량강저솔저우대조조(P≤0.01)。결론:치료조근기완해솔、생존질량급완해암통균우우대조조,제시복방고삼주사액연합열료교단순응용복방고삼주사액능사교다환자림상수익。
Objective To observe the curative effect analysis of composite radix sophorae flavescentis combined with thermotherapy on the digestive tumorous patients.Methods Therapy group:com-posite radix sophorae flavescentis 50ml with 0.9%saline ,interve-nous drop infusion ,one time every day , combined with out-of-body high-frequency thermotherapy one time every other day , continuous 20 days. Control group:only with composite radix sophorae flaves-centis,the dosage, usage and course of treatment are same to therapy group.Results①relieve pain of two groups comparison:complete remission 2 cases, obvious remission 25 cases, partial remission 10 cases in 41 cases of therapy group , total effective rate is 65.8%;total effective rate of control group is 40.0%;There is statistics difference between two groups (P≤0.05).②survival quality of two groups com-parison:excellence 7 cases , utility 26 cases, ineffective 8 cases of therapy group, ]effective rate is 80.4%, control group is 55.0%,there is statistics difference between two groups(P≤0.05);③body weight of two groups comparison:lower rate of therapy group is lower than control groups, (P≤0.05).Conclusions Remission rate, survival quality and relieve pain of therapy group all have an advantage to control group , to hint more patients profiting from the composite radix sophorae flavescentis combined with thermotherapy than simple ap-plication.