中华全科医师杂志
中華全科醫師雜誌
중화전과의사잡지
Chinese Journal of General Practitioners
2015年
10期
781-783
,共3页
李宝林%孔庆波%赵巍%马力学%赵建罡
李寶林%孔慶波%趙巍%馬力學%趙建罡
리보림%공경파%조외%마역학%조건강
超声冲击波%跟骨骨刺
超聲遲擊波%跟骨骨刺
초성충격파%근골골자
Shock waves%Heel spur
对2012年1月至2014年10月收治的98例持续性跟痛症患者分别行体外冲击波治疗(治疗组)和红外线物理治疗(对照组),每组49例,治疗4周为1个疗程,采用视觉模拟评分法(VAS)进行评定.治疗结束时VAS足部疼痛和功能评分治疗组为(39.6±6.2)和(25.1±4.6)分、对照组为(32.3±6.5)和(17.4±7.2)分,与治疗前的(16.5±4.6)和(14.4±8.6)分、(16.1±4.7)和(14.6±8.4)分相比,两组足部疼痛明显减轻、功能改善(均P<0.05);治疗结束后4周随访,治疗组有效率65%(32/49)、改善率31% (15/49),好于对照组的27% (13/49)和63% (31/49)(均P<0.05).体外冲击波治疗持续性跟骨痛效果显著,疗效优于物理疗法,适合临床应用.
對2012年1月至2014年10月收治的98例持續性跟痛癥患者分彆行體外遲擊波治療(治療組)和紅外線物理治療(對照組),每組49例,治療4週為1箇療程,採用視覺模擬評分法(VAS)進行評定.治療結束時VAS足部疼痛和功能評分治療組為(39.6±6.2)和(25.1±4.6)分、對照組為(32.3±6.5)和(17.4±7.2)分,與治療前的(16.5±4.6)和(14.4±8.6)分、(16.1±4.7)和(14.6±8.4)分相比,兩組足部疼痛明顯減輕、功能改善(均P<0.05);治療結束後4週隨訪,治療組有效率65%(32/49)、改善率31% (15/49),好于對照組的27% (13/49)和63% (31/49)(均P<0.05).體外遲擊波治療持續性跟骨痛效果顯著,療效優于物理療法,適閤臨床應用.
대2012년1월지2014년10월수치적98례지속성근통증환자분별행체외충격파치료(치료조)화홍외선물리치료(대조조),매조49례,치료4주위1개료정,채용시각모의평분법(VAS)진행평정.치료결속시VAS족부동통화공능평분치료조위(39.6±6.2)화(25.1±4.6)분、대조조위(32.3±6.5)화(17.4±7.2)분,여치료전적(16.5±4.6)화(14.4±8.6)분、(16.1±4.7)화(14.6±8.4)분상비,량조족부동통명현감경、공능개선(균P<0.05);치료결속후4주수방,치료조유효솔65%(32/49)、개선솔31% (15/49),호우대조조적27% (13/49)화63% (31/49)(균P<0.05).체외충격파치료지속성근골통효과현저,료효우우물리요법,괄합림상응용.
To explore the therapeutic efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave (ESW) for persistent heel pain.A total of 98 patients of persistent heel pain were randomly divided into ESW treatment and control groups (n =49 each).Treatment group had ESW while control group received infrared physical therapy.And their visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were assessed.After one course of treatment, VAS heel pain and function scores were (39.6 ± 6.2) and (25.1 ± 4.6) in ESW group versus (32.3 ± 6.5) and (17.4 ±7.2) in control group.And before treatment, (16.5 ±4.6) and (14.4 ±8.6), (16.1 ±4.7) and (14.6 ± 8.4) respectively.Heel pain significantly decreased with functional improvement (all P < 0.05).After one course, the effective rate was 65% (32/49) in treatment group.And the improvement rate of 31% (15/49) was better than control group [27% (13/49) and 63% (31/49)] (all P < 0.05).ESW treatment of persistent heel pain was more efficacious than physical therapy and it could be applied clinically.