穴位埋线治疗慢性荨麻疹56例临床观察

Observation on 56 Cases with Chronic Urticaria Treated by Acupoint Catgut Embedding Therapy

目的:观察穴位埋线治疗慢性荨麻疹的疗效。方法:将112例慢性荨麻疹患者随机分为治疗组和对照组各56例,治疗组给予穴位埋线疗法,对照组给予口服盐酸左西替利嗪片及穴位注射盐酸苯海拉明注射液治疗,均连续治疗45 d,分别于治疗后第46天和治疗结束后90 d随访,观察疗效、不良反应和复发率。结果:治疗组总有效率、复发率、不良反应率分别为73.2%,19.5%,1.8%;对照组分别为71.4%,57.5%,8.9%;两组在疗效和不良反应率比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),两组复发率比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论:穴位埋线和口服盐酸左西替利嗪片配合穴位注射盐酸苯海拉明注射液治疗慢性荨麻疹疗效和不良反应相似,但穴位埋线疗效更持久,复发率低。

Objective： To observe the curative effect on chronic urticaria with acupoint catgut embedding therapy.Method. Methods： 112 patients with chronic urticaria patients were randomly divided into treatment group （n=56） and control group （n= 56）. Patients in the treatment group were treated with acupoint catgut embedding therapy. And patients in the control group were treated by Levocetirizine Dihydrochloride Tablets and point injection with Diphenhydramine Hydrochloride Injection. The patients are treated for 45 days consecutively, and a follow-up study was conducted on the Forty-sixth days and Ninetieth days after the end of treatment to observe the curative effect, recurernce rate and adverse reaction. Results： The treatment group achieved 73.2%, 19.5% and 1.8% respectively in effectiveness, recurernce rate and adverse reaction, and that of the control group are 71.4%, 57.5%, and 8.9%. There is no statistic difference between the two groups in effectiveness and ad- verse reaction（P〉0.05）, while there is significant statistic difference（P〈0.01） in recurernce rate. Conclusion： The effectiveness and adverse reaction of treating chronic urticaria with acupoint catgut embedding therapy and Levocetirizine Dihydrochloride Tablets and point injection with Diphenhydramine Hydrochloride Injection are similar, but acupoint catgut embedding therapy- can provide longer lasting effect and lower recurernce rate.