不同频率电针对顽固性网球肘患者疗效的影响

Effects of electroacupuncture of different frequencies for treatment of patients with refractory tennis elbow syndrome

目的:观察不同频率的电针对顽固性网球肘患者疗效的差异。方法:将85例顽固性网球肘患者随机分为疏密波组(44例)、连续波组(41例)。两组取穴相同,主穴为患部痛点,分别采取连续波或疏密波电针治疗。通过视觉模拟评分法(VAS)观察两组患者疼痛评分,评价两组疗效。结果:疏密波组有效率为84.1%,连续波组为82.9%,两组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);疏密波组治愈率为56.8%,明显优于连续波组的31.7%(P<0.05)。两组治疗后VAS评分均显著降低,与治疗前比较,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.001);两组之间VAS评分治疗前后差值比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),疏密波组的症状改善优于连续波组。结论:疏密波电针治疗顽固性网球肘的疗效优于连续波电针,是一种优化的治疗顽固性网球肘的电针治疗方案。

Objective To observe the different effects of electroacupuncture of different frequencies for treatment of patients with refractory tennis elbow syndrome. Methods Eighty five patients with refractory tennis elbow syn- drome were randomly derided into continuous wave group （n=41） and rarefaction wave group （n=44）. The same acupoints were selected in both groups, and the major acupoints were the tenderness point around affected area in both groups. The Visual Analogue Scale （VAS） was used to evaluate the tenderness score of each patient in both groups. The effectiveness was evaluated by the tenderness score. Results The effective rate was 82.9% in conti nuous wave group, and 84.1 % in rarefaction wave group, with no significant difference in statistical analysis （P〉0.05）. The healing rate was 56.8% in rarefaction wave group, better than 31.7% in continuous wave group （P〈0.05）. The VAS scores were significantly reduced after electroacupuncture treatment in both groups （both P〈0. 001）. There was significant difference in decreasing the VAS score between two groups after treatment （P〈O. 05）, and the rarefaction wave group was better than the continuous wave group. Conclusion The electro- acupuncture of rarefaction wave is better than the electroacupuncture of continuous wave, therefore, it is a better treatment for refractory tennis elbow syndrome.