体外冲击波与小针刀联合消炎镇痛液治疗老年跟痛症的疗效对比

Comparison research of extracorporeal shock wave therapy and small needle knife therapy combined with triamcinolone acetonide in elderly patients with calcaneodynia

目的探讨分别采用体外冲击波或小针刀联合消炎镇痛液治疗老年跟痛症的疗效。方法将64例老年跟痛症患者随机分为体外冲击波治疗组32例,小针刀治疗组32例。体外冲击波治疗组采用体外冲击波治疗,小针刀治疗组采用小针刀联合固定配方的消炎镇痛液治疗。记录2组患者一般情况、治疗前的疼痛程度、治疗后的改善程度。所有患者治疗前及治疗后1、3、5月的疼痛程度分别采用101点数字评分法(NRS-101)和5级口述描绘评分法(VRS-5)进行评定。结果与治疗前相比,小针刀治疗组治疗后1、3、5月的NRS-101评分和VRS-5评分差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05);与治疗前相比,体外冲击波治疗组治疗后1、3月的NRS-101评分和VRS-5评分差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。治疗后3月和5月时,2组NRS-100评分和VRS-5评分比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论体外冲击波治疗和小针刀联合消炎镇痛液治疗对老年跟痛症患者均有较好的疗效,与体外冲击波相比,小针刀联合消炎镇痛液治疗老年跟痛症患者远期疗效更好。

Objective To compare the efficacy between extracorporeal shock wave and small needle knife combined with triamcinolone acetonide for the treatment of calcaneodynia in the elderly patients. Methods Sixty-four elderly patients with calcaneodynia were randomly assigned into two groups. The extracorporeal shock wave group（ A group） received extracorporeal shock wave therapy and the small needle knife group（ B group） received small needle knife combined with triamcinolone acetonide. Pain degree was evaluated by 101-point numeric rating scale（ NRS-101） and fifth verbal rating scales（ VRS-5） before and 1 month,3 months,5 months after treatment. Results The scores of NRS-101 and VRS-5were significantly decreased 1,3 month after treatment in the two groups（ P〈0. 05）. And the scores of NRS-101 and VRS-5 in B group were significantly decreased 5 months after the treatment（ P〈0. 05）. There were also significant differences between two groups 3 months and 5 months after treatment（ P〈0. 05）. Conclusions The combined use of the small needle knife with triamcinolone acetonide is more effective than the extracorporeal shock wave used in the elderly patients for calcaneodynia.