3种方法治疗盆底痉挛综合征的疗效比较

Comparison of Three Methods for Treatment of Spastic Pelvic Floor Syndrome

目的对比生物反馈治疗、黛力新治疗及生物反馈联合黛立新治疗盆底痉挛综合征(spastic pelvic floor syndrome,SPFS)的疗效。方法 2007年10月至2012年1月确诊的SPFS患者138例,按随机数字表法分成生物反馈治疗组(A组50例)、黛力新治疗组(B组43例)、生物反馈联合黛力新治疗组(C组45例)。3周后评价患者治疗前后及3组间临床症状、焦虑抑郁评分及直肠肛管压力。结果治疗后患者临床症状、焦虑抑郁评分及直肠肛管压力较治疗前改善,其中A组及C组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。A组及C组疗效明显优于B组,2组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。C组疗效优于A组,其中焦虑抑郁评分比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论生物反馈治疗盆底肌痉挛综合征是一种疗效好、安全、无创的方法,联合黛力新治疗效果更佳。

Objective To compare the efficacies of biofeedback treatment, Deanxit treatment and combined biofeedback and Deanxit treatment in patients with spastic pelvic floor syndrome （SPFS）. Methods One hundred and thirty-eight patients with SPFS confirmed between October 2007 and January 2012 were randomly divided into three groups： biofeedback treatment group （group A, n=50）, Deanxit treatment group （group B, n=43）, and combined biofeedback and Deanxit treatment group （group C,n =45）. Clinical symptoms, anorectal pressure and anxiety and depression scores were compared between pre- and post-treatmer/t and among the three groups after 3 weeks. Results Clinical symptoms, anorectal pressure and anxiety and depression scores were improved after treatment. The differences were significant between group A and group C （P〈0.05）. Compared with group B, the cura- tive efficacy was significantly improved in group A or group C （P〈0.05）. Compared with group A, the curative efficacy and anxiety and depression scores were significantly improved in group C （P〈0.05）. Conclusion Biofeedback treatment is an effective, safe and noninvasive method for the treatment of SPFS. Moreover, the combined biofeedback and Deanxit treatment is superior to biofeedback treatment alone for treating SPFS.