中医临床研究
中醫臨床研究
중의림상연구
CLINICAL JOURNAL OF CHINESE MEDICINE
2013年
1期
62-63
,共2页
腰椎间盘突出症%中西结合治疗
腰椎間盤突齣癥%中西結閤治療
요추간반돌출증%중서결합치료
Lubar intervertebral disc protrusion%Integrative medicine
目的:观察中西结合治疗腰椎间盘突出症的临床疗效.方法:将160例病人随机分为两组.对照组80例,以地塞米松5mg 静注,1次/d.20%的甘露醇250ml,脱水7d 后停药,同时,给予10%葡萄糖500ml 加复方丹参注射液40ml 静注,7d 为1个疗程.中西结合治疗组80例,在对照组治疗方法上加用牵引治疗,30min/次,每日治疗 1次,7次为1个疗程.针灸治疗,取关元俞、膀胱俞双侧环跳、秩边、风市、足三里、阳陵泉、委中、昆仑等穴留针30 min.1次/d,7d 为1个疗程.腰背肌锻炼.2个疗程后评定疗效.结果:治愈率中西结合治疗组为96.25%,对照组为72.5%.中西结合治疗组与对照组比较,差异有显著性(P<0.05).
目的:觀察中西結閤治療腰椎間盤突齣癥的臨床療效.方法:將160例病人隨機分為兩組.對照組80例,以地塞米鬆5mg 靜註,1次/d.20%的甘露醇250ml,脫水7d 後停藥,同時,給予10%葡萄糖500ml 加複方丹參註射液40ml 靜註,7d 為1箇療程.中西結閤治療組80例,在對照組治療方法上加用牽引治療,30min/次,每日治療 1次,7次為1箇療程.針灸治療,取關元俞、膀胱俞雙側環跳、秩邊、風市、足三裏、暘陵泉、委中、昆崙等穴留針30 min.1次/d,7d 為1箇療程.腰揹肌鍛煉.2箇療程後評定療效.結果:治愈率中西結閤治療組為96.25%,對照組為72.5%.中西結閤治療組與對照組比較,差異有顯著性(P<0.05).
목적:관찰중서결합치료요추간반돌출증적림상료효.방법:장160례병인수궤분위량조.대조조80례,이지새미송5mg 정주,1차/d.20%적감로순250ml,탈수7d 후정약,동시,급여10%포도당500ml 가복방단삼주사액40ml 정주,7d 위1개료정.중서결합치료조80례,재대조조치료방법상가용견인치료,30min/차,매일치료 1차,7차위1개료정.침구치료,취관원유、방광유쌍측배도、질변、풍시、족삼리、양릉천、위중、곤륜등혈류침30 min.1차/d,7d 위1개료정.요배기단련.2개료정후평정료효.결과:치유솔중서결합치료조위96.25%,대조조위72.5%.중서결합치료조여대조조비교,차이유현저성(P<0.05).
Objective: To observe the clinical effect of the integrative medicine in the treatment of lubar intervertebral disc protrusion. Methods: 160 patients were randomly divided into two groups, 80 in each group. The control group was intravenously injected with Dexamethasone 5mg, once a day, then with 20% Mannitol 250ml for 7 days, meanwhile given 10% glucose 500ml plus complex Danshen injection 40ml, 7 days in a course of treatment. The treatment group was given traction on the treatment of the control group, 30min a time, once a day and 7 days in a course of treatment. Acupuncture on Guanshu, Pangguangshu, Zhibian, Fengshi, Zusanli, Yanglingquan, Weizhong, Kunlun and other acupoints for 30 min, once a day, 7 days in a course of treatment. And lumbar dorsal muscles were also trained. The therapeutic effect was evaluated after 2 courses of treatment. Results: The recovery rate of the treatment group was 96.25% while that of the control group was 72.5%, with a significant difference (P<0.05).