顿足疗法配合药醋熏洗治疗跟痛症临床疗效分析

Clinical efficacy of foot therapy combined with drug vinegar fumigation in treatment of heel pain

目的探讨顿足疗法配合药醋熏洗治疗跟痛症的临床疗效。方法随机选取2008年5月～2010年1月来我院就诊的跟痛症患者135例，随机分为对照组（封闭疗法治疗）67例及观察组（顿足疗法配合药醋熏洗治疗）68例。对两组患者的临床疗效及治疗前后的疼痛视觉量表（VAS）、复发率及不良反应进行比较。结果观察组有效率为94．16％，对照组有效率为88．06％，两组比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。两组患者治疗前比较，差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）：两组患者治疗后比较，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）；两组治疗前后比较，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。经过2年的随访，观察组复发率为13．24％，对照组为31．34％，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。均无不良反应发生。结论顿足疗法配合药醋熏洗和封闭疗法治疗跟痛症均有效，但顿足疗法配合药醋熏洗简便易行。无副作用。

Objective To explore the clinical efficacy of foot therapy combined with drug vinegar fumigation in treatment of heel pain. Methods A total of 135 cases of patients were collected from May 2008 to January 2010 in our hospital, who were randomly divided into control group （treatment 67 cases of closed） and observation group （foot therapy combined with drug vinegar fumigation treatment） of 68 cases. Pain visual analog scale for clinical efficacy and the treatment of two groups of patients （VAS）, recurrence rate and adverse reaction were all compared. Results The Efficiency of observation group was 94.16%, while the control group was 88.06%, there was significant difference between two groups （/9 〈 0.05）. there were no significant differences comparison of two groups of patients before treatment （P 〉 0.05）; After comparison, the difference of two group patients was statistically significant （P 〈 0.05）; The difference of two groups was statistically significant before and after treatment （P 〈 0.05）. After 2 years of follow-up, the recurrence rate of observation group was 13.24%, while the control group was 31.34%（P 〈 0.05）. There was no adverse reaction. Conclusion Foot therapy combined with drug vinegar fumigation in treatment of heel pain is effective, but the foot therapy combined with drug vinegar fumigation is simple and there is no side effect.