中国中医药现代远程教育
中國中醫藥現代遠程教育
중국중의약현대원정교육
CHINESE MEDICINE MODERN DISTANCE EDUCATION OF CHINA
2015年
6期
59-60
,共2页
盆腔炎性疾病后遗症%湿热瘀结%保留灌肠%中西医结合疗法%妇科%物理疗法
盆腔炎性疾病後遺癥%濕熱瘀結%保留灌腸%中西醫結閤療法%婦科%物理療法
분강염성질병후유증%습열어결%보류관장%중서의결합요법%부과%물리요법
the sequelae of pelvic inflammatory disease%stagnant dampness-heat and blood stasis%retention enema%therapy of integrated medicine%Gynecology%physical therapy
目的：观察中西医结合治疗盆腔炎性疾病后遗症湿热瘀结型的临床疗效。方法将70例湿热瘀结型盆腔炎性疾病后遗症患者随机分为两组，每组各35例。对照组月经期给予静脉滴注左氧氟沙星及奥硝唑，共7d；治疗组在对照组治疗的基础上，经后期采用自拟祛湿消瘀汤保留灌肠治疗，同时采用永磁旋振治疗仪治疗，14d为1个疗程。共治疗3个疗程。结果两组治疗前积分比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)，治疗后治疗组积分明显低于对照组，总有效率治疗组为94.29%，对照组为74.29%，两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。
目的：觀察中西醫結閤治療盆腔炎性疾病後遺癥濕熱瘀結型的臨床療效。方法將70例濕熱瘀結型盆腔炎性疾病後遺癥患者隨機分為兩組，每組各35例。對照組月經期給予靜脈滴註左氧氟沙星及奧硝唑，共7d；治療組在對照組治療的基礎上，經後期採用自擬祛濕消瘀湯保留灌腸治療，同時採用永磁鏇振治療儀治療，14d為1箇療程。共治療3箇療程。結果兩組治療前積分比較差異無統計學意義(P>0.05)，治療後治療組積分明顯低于對照組，總有效率治療組為94.29%，對照組為74.29%，兩組比較差異有統計學意義(P<0.05)。
목적：관찰중서의결합치료분강염성질병후유증습열어결형적림상료효。방법장70례습열어결형분강염성질병후유증환자수궤분위량조，매조각35례。대조조월경기급여정맥적주좌양불사성급오초서，공7d；치료조재대조조치료적기출상，경후기채용자의거습소어탕보류관장치료，동시채용영자선진치료의치료，14d위1개료정。공치료3개료정。결과량조치료전적분비교차이무통계학의의(P>0.05)，치료후치료조적분명현저우대조조，총유효솔치료조위94.29%，대조조위74.29%，량조비교차이유통계학의의(P<0.05)。
Objective To observe the clinical effect of therapy of integrated medicine on the treatment for the sequelae of pelvic inflammatory disease of stagnant dampness-heat and blood stasis. Methods 70 patients were randomly divided into treatment group and control group, 35 cases in each group. The cases in the control group were given intravenous drip of levofloxacin and ornidazole in the menstrual period for 7 days. The cases of the treatment group were given the treatment of retention enema by the Clearing Damp and Eliminating Stasis decoction and permanent magnet rotary vibration treatment instrument based on the control group for 14 days after the menstrual period; this was regarded as one course. Both the two groups were treated three courses. Results There was no statistical significance difference of the comprehensive score between the two groups before treatment ( P>0.05) . The comprehensive score of the treatment group was lower than the control group after treatment. The total effective rate in the treatment group was 94.29%, and 74.29%in the control group. There was statistically significant difference between the two groups (P<0.05) .
