梅花针结合西药治疗局限性神经性皮炎的临床疗效观察

Clinical observation on plum needle treatment combined medicine for localized neurodermatitis

目的本研究探讨评价梅花针对局限性神经性皮炎的作用及起效机理。方法将60例局限性神经性皮炎患者随机分为对照组(30例),治疗组(30例)。对照组采用卤米松涂搽皮损处,加上口服氯雷他定0.1 mg。治疗组与对照组的区别在于增加梅花针扣刺皮损处和配穴。一周两次,期间相隔3 d治疗一次。两组均是以4周为一个疗程。一个疗程结束后比较两组的瘙痒度、皮损形态、面积和临床疗效。结果:两组治疗后均能改善局限性神经性皮炎的瘙痒度、皮损形态、面积。观察组在瘙痒度、皮损面积的改变方面较对照组优越,差异有统计学意义(p<0.05)。面积改变方面相近,差异无统计学意义(p>0.05)。两组疗效比较,治疗组总有效率86.67%,对照组总有效率56.67%,差异有统计学意义(p<0.05),治疗组优于对照组。两组在治疗过程中无出现不良反应。结论梅花针配合西药辩证治疗局限性神经性皮炎,能明显改善皮损形态、瘙痒度,治疗效果优于单纯西药治疗。

Objective This study systematically observed Plum Acupuncture to treat localized neurodermatitis curative effective and side effect of Plum Needle. Methods 60 patients were grouped by random number method,were divided into control group, treatment group 30 cases each. Control group using halogen betamethasone daub affected area, twice a day, plus oral loratadine tablets 0.1 mg a day; Treatment group had the same foundation treatment as the control group treatment.And the treatment group add the plum acupuncture. All of the patients would get the effect of grading before and after four weeks after treatment. Judging from itchy skin shape, area and degree. According to the facts to record, using t test and rand sun test to analyze clinical efficacy. Result Two groups after treatment, thire lesions form, area and the degree of pruritus score is significantly lower than before,the difference was statistically significant(p<0.05). Comparison after treatment between the two groups,treatment group score of the itchy skin lesions form and degree lower than the control group, the difference was statistically significant(p<0.05). About the score of area, there was no statistically significant difference(p>0.05). Two groups after treatmen, their total score of skin lesions were lower than prior treatment, the difference was statistically significant(p<0.05). Comparison after treatment between the two groups, treatment group total score of the skin lesions was lower than the control group, the difference was statistically significant(p<0.05).Treatment group total effective rate was 86.67%, control group total effective rate was 56.67%, the difference of the effective rate between the two groups was statistically significant(p<0.05), all patients were not special adverse reactions.