CAJ | 학술논문

目的：探讨多模式治疗颈源性头痛的临床疗效及优缺点。方法将46例颈源性头痛的患者,分别采用保守治疗﹑颈2/3﹑3/4椎间盘射频热凝治疗和多模式治疗的方法,分为保守治疗组(A组)12例﹑射频热凝治疗组(B组)15例﹑综合治疗组(C组)19例,并通过颈椎活动度评分(ROM)和疼痛程度数字评分(NRS)对照两种方法的疗效,讨论分析多模式治疗颈源性头痛的优缺点。结果比较3组患者术前与术后的VAS评分,其中,术前A﹑B﹑C组分别为(6.9±0.4)﹑(7.2±0.3)﹑(7.3±0.4),术后1个月分别为(2.8±0.4)﹑(2.9±0.2)﹑(2.1±0.3),比较3组术前与术后的ROM评分,其中术前A﹑B﹑C组分别为(2.7±0.2)﹑(3.0±0.4)﹑(3.2±0.3),3组患者术前术后及随访的ROM和NRS均获得下降,以多模式治疗组最为显著,差异有统计学意义,46例患者治疗及随访期间均未发现明显不良并发症。结论多模式治疗颈源性头痛是安全高效的临床治疗选择。
목적：탐토다모식치료경원성두통적림상료효급우결점。방법장46례경원성두통적환자,분별채용보수치료﹑경2/3﹑3/4추간반사빈열응치료화다모식치료적방법,분위보수치료조(A조)12례﹑사빈열응치료조(B조)15례﹑종합치료조(C조)19례,병통과경추활동도평분(ROM)화동통정도수자평분(NRS)대조량충방법적료효,토론분석다모식치료경원성두통적우결점。결과비교3조환자술전여술후적VAS평분,기중,술전A﹑B﹑C조분별위(6.9±0.4)﹑(7.2±0.3)﹑(7.3±0.4),술후1개월분별위(2.8±0.4)﹑(2.9±0.2)﹑(2.1±0.3),비교3조술전여술후적ROM평분,기중술전A﹑B﹑C조분별위(2.7±0.2)﹑(3.0±0.4)﹑(3.2±0.3),3조환자술전술후급수방적ROM화NRS균획득하강,이다모식치료조최위현저,차이유통계학의의,46례환자치료급수방기간균미발현명현불량병발증。결론다모식치료경원성두통시안전고효적림상치료선택。
Objective To investigate the clinical effects and relative merits and disadvantages of multi-mode therapy for cervico-genic headache. Methods 46 patients with cervicogenic headache were divided into the conservative treatment group (group A) of 12 cases treated by conservative treatment, radiofrequency thermocoagulation group(group B) of 15 cases treated by 2/3, 3/4 cervi-cal disc radiofrequency thermocoagulation, comprehensive treatment group (group C) of 19 cases treated by multi-mode therapy. The treatment effect evaluated by cervical spine range of motion (ROM) and numerical rating scale (NRS) of the two methods was compared. And the advantages and disadvantages of multi-mode therapy were discussed and analyzed. Results Comparing the preoperative and postoperative VAS of the three groups: before operation, the VAS of group A, group B and group C was (6.9±0.4) points, (7.2±0.3) points, (7.3±0.4) points, respectively, 1 month after operation, the VAS of the three groups was (2.8±0.4) points, (2.9±0.2) points, (2.1±0.3) points, respectively. Comparing the preoperative and postoperative ROM score of the three groups: be-fore operation, the ROM score of group A, group B, group C was (2.7±0.2) points, (3.0±0.4) points, (3.2±0.3) points, respectively. The ROM and NRS of the three groups of patients in preoperative and postoperative and follow-up periods decreased, and those of the multi-mode therapy group decreased the most with statistically significance. No significant complications occurred in the 46 patients during the treatment and the follow-up period. Conclusion The multi-mode therapy is a safe and effective selection for the clinical treatment of cervicogenic headache.