中华麻醉学杂志
中華痳醉學雜誌
중화마취학잡지
Chinese Journal of Anesthesiology
2015年
7期
815-818
,共4页
超声疗法%软组织损伤%疼痛
超聲療法%軟組織損傷%疼痛
초성요법%연조직손상%동통
Ultrasonic therapy%Soft tissue injuries%Pain
目的 比较低强度和高强度聚焦超声治疗慢性软组织损伤性疼痛的效果.方法 慢性软组织损伤性疼痛病人93例,性别不限,年龄18～ 80岁,BMI 18～31 kg/m2,病程3个月～ 10年,数字评估量表评分4～8分,采用随机数字表法,将病人分为2组:低强度组(LI组,n=49)和高强度组(HI组,n=44).LI组以能感受到(酸、麻、胀、痛)的最小聚焦超声强度持续治疗10 min;HI组以不能耐受的聚焦超声强度治疗1 min,停止1 min,共治疗10 min;1次/d,2组疗程均为5d.治疗期间当数字评估量表评分仍＞4分时肌肉注射帕瑞昔布钠40 mg;根据疗效指数和活动功能改善情况评估疗效,并进行生活质量评分和抑郁评分,记录治疗有关不良事件的发生情况.结果 LI组和HI组治疗总有效率分别为98％和84％;与HI组比较,LI组治疗总有效率升高,生活质量评分升高(P＜0.05),抑郁评分差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).LI组无一例病人使用帕瑞昔布钠,未见治疗有关不良事件发生,HI组有1例病人(2％)使用帕瑞昔布钠,皮肤灼伤、神经损伤和异常疼痛的发生率分别为4％、2％和2％,未见组织肿胀发生.结论 与高强度聚焦超声比较,低强度聚焦超声治疗慢性软组织损伤性疼痛的疗效高,且安全性良好.
目的 比較低彊度和高彊度聚焦超聲治療慢性軟組織損傷性疼痛的效果.方法 慢性軟組織損傷性疼痛病人93例,性彆不限,年齡18～ 80歲,BMI 18～31 kg/m2,病程3箇月～ 10年,數字評估量錶評分4～8分,採用隨機數字錶法,將病人分為2組:低彊度組(LI組,n=49)和高彊度組(HI組,n=44).LI組以能感受到(痠、痳、脹、痛)的最小聚焦超聲彊度持續治療10 min;HI組以不能耐受的聚焦超聲彊度治療1 min,停止1 min,共治療10 min;1次/d,2組療程均為5d.治療期間噹數字評估量錶評分仍＞4分時肌肉註射帕瑞昔佈鈉40 mg;根據療效指數和活動功能改善情況評估療效,併進行生活質量評分和抑鬱評分,記錄治療有關不良事件的髮生情況.結果 LI組和HI組治療總有效率分彆為98％和84％;與HI組比較,LI組治療總有效率升高,生活質量評分升高(P＜0.05),抑鬱評分差異無統計學意義(P＞0.05).LI組無一例病人使用帕瑞昔佈鈉,未見治療有關不良事件髮生,HI組有1例病人(2％)使用帕瑞昔佈鈉,皮膚灼傷、神經損傷和異常疼痛的髮生率分彆為4％、2％和2％,未見組織腫脹髮生.結論 與高彊度聚焦超聲比較,低彊度聚焦超聲治療慢性軟組織損傷性疼痛的療效高,且安全性良好.
목적 비교저강도화고강도취초초성치료만성연조직손상성동통적효과.방법 만성연조직손상성동통병인93례,성별불한,년령18～ 80세,BMI 18～31 kg/m2,병정3개월～ 10년,수자평고량표평분4～8분,채용수궤수자표법,장병인분위2조:저강도조(LI조,n=49)화고강도조(HI조,n=44).LI조이능감수도(산、마、창、통)적최소취초초성강도지속치료10 min;HI조이불능내수적취초초성강도치료1 min,정지1 min,공치료10 min;1차/d,2조료정균위5d.치료기간당수자평고량표평분잉＞4분시기육주사파서석포납40 mg;근거료효지수화활동공능개선정황평고료효,병진행생활질량평분화억욱평분,기록치료유관불량사건적발생정황.결과 LI조화HI조치료총유효솔분별위98％화84％;여HI조비교,LI조치료총유효솔승고,생활질량평분승고(P＜0.05),억욱평분차이무통계학의의(P＞0.05).LI조무일례병인사용파서석포납,미견치료유관불량사건발생,HI조유1례병인(2％)사용파서석포납,피부작상、신경손상화이상동통적발생솔분별위4％、2％화2％,미견조직종창발생.결론 여고강도취초초성비교,저강도취초초성치료만성연조직손상성동통적료효고,차안전성량호.
Objective To compare the low-intensity focused ultrasound (LIFU) and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) in treating pain due to chronic soft tissue injury.Methods Ninety-three patients with pain due to chronic soft tissue injury, aged 18-80 yr, with body mass index of 18-31 kg/m2,course of the disease 3 months-10 yr, and pain intensity of 4-8 in a numeric rating scale, were randomly divided into 2 groups using a random number table: low intensity group (group LI, n =49) and high intensity group (group HI, n =44).In group LI, the patients received LIFU with the minimum ultrasonic intensity causing senses (acid, hemp, swelling, pain) , and the treatment was continued for 10 min.In group HI, the patients received HIFU with the focused uhrasound intensity that could not be tolerated by the patients, the treatment was continued for 1 min each time and then suspended for 1 min, and the total time for treatment was 10 min.The patients received the treatment once a day, and the course of treatment was 5 days in both groups.When numeric rating scale score ＞ 4 during the treatment, parecoxib sodium 40 mg was injected intramuscularly as rescue analgesic.Both the therapeutic index and improvement in movement were used to evaluate the therapeutic effect, and the quality of life and depression were assessed and scored.The treatment-related adverse events were also recorded.Results The total effective rate was 98％ and 84％ in LI and HI groups, respectively.Compared with group HI, the total effective rate was significantly increased, the quality of life score was increased, and no significant change was found in depression score in group LI.No patients used parecoxib sodium or developed treatment-related adverse events in group LI.One patient (2％) required parecoxib sodium, the incidence of skin burns, nerve damage and abnormal pain was 4％, 2％ and 2％, respectively, and no patients developed tissue swelling in group HI.Conclusion LIFU has higher therapeutic effect than HIFU in treating pain due to soft tissue injury, and the safety is good.
