电针与温针灸治疗瘀血阻滞型膝骨关节炎的疗效比较

Comparison of Clinical Effects between Acusector and Warm Needling Moxibustion in Treating Knee Osteoarthritis of Blood Stasis Obstruction Pattern

目的:比较电针与温针灸治疗瘀血阻滞型膝关节骨性关节炎(knee osteoarthritis,KOA)的临床疗效。方法:将60例瘀血阻滞型KOA的患者随机分为电针组、温针灸组各30例,以局部选穴与辨证选穴相结合分别施行电针和温针灸,得气后温针组针尾以艾绒灸之,每次2壮;电针组选择病痛所在关节附近1组穴位,接通电针仪,连续波,调节电流量,以患者能耐受且有舒服感为度。2组治疗30分钟后取针。隔日1次,每周3次,4周为1个疗程,连续治疗2个疗程。结果:临床愈显率电针组为56.67%(17/30),温针组为36.67%(11/30),2组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),但总有效率2组无明显差异(P>0.05)。电针组对关节疼痛症状的缓解作用明显(P<0.05),温针组对患者关节僵硬症状的缓解较有优势(P<0.05);在恢复日常功能活动上,电针组优于温针组(P<0.05)。结论:电针和温针灸均对瘀血阻滞型KOA有显著的临床疗效,电针在缓解疼痛时间上效果较佳,而温针灸在缓解关节僵硬上效果较佳,电针总体效果优于温针灸组。

Objective： To compare clinical effects of acusector and warm needling moxibustion in treating knee osteoarthritis （KOA） of blood stasis obstruction pattern. Methods：Sixty KOA patients were randomized into a-cusector group and warm needling moxibustion group, they received the therapy by local acupoint selection com-bined with the acupoints according to syndrome differentiation, warm needling moxibustion group accepted moxa moxibustion at the end of the needle when the patients obtained Qi, two cones each time;the points around the joints were chosen in the acusector group, and acusector instruments were connectted, continuous wave, electrical current flow was regulated, at the degrees of the patients could tolerate and feel comfortable. Both groups were removed the needles in 30 minutes after treating. Once every other day, three times each week, one course of the treatment was four weeks, and all the patients were treated for two consecutive courses of the treatment. Results：Markedly effec-tive rate of acusector group was 56.67% （17/30）, higher than 36.67%of warm needling moxibustion group （11/30）, the difference showed statistical meaning （P〈0.05）, but there was insignificant difference between both groups in to-tal effective rate （P〉0.05）. The pain of joint in acusector group was relieved remarkably （P〈0.05）, the stiffness of joint in the patients of warm needling moxibustion group was alleviated better （P〈0.05）;acusector group was supe-rior to warm needling moxibustion group in the rehabilitation of daily functional activity （P〈0.05）. Conclusion：Both acusector and warm needling moxibustion are effective in treating KOA, acusector is better in the time of re-lieving the pain, while warm needling moxibustion is more effective in alleviating joint stiffness, total effects of acu-sector are superior to these of warm needling moxibustion.