腰椎间盘突出症综合治疗方案的优选研究

The Research of Optimizing treatment with prolapse of lumbar intervertebral disc

目的探讨腰椎间盘突出症不同治疗方案的临床疗效及安全性,为该病提供疗效肯定、安全性好、适合临床应用的最佳治疗方案。方法观察腰椎间盘突出症患者212例,将患者分为4组,治疗Ⅰ组54例,治疗Ⅱ组52例,治疗Ⅲ组54例,治疗Ⅳ组52例。治疗Ⅰ组采用小针刀治疗,治疗Ⅱ组采用银质针导热治疗,治疗Ⅲ组采用中药定向药透治疗,治疗Ⅳ组采用小针刀配合中药定向药透治疗。共4个疗程,采用视觉模拟量尺(VAS)评分,对各组患者在治疗前后的疼痛程度和疗效进行评估,并记录治疗方案的效果。结果 4组总显效率分别为40.74%、53.85%、74.07%、84.62%,4组患者比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),Ⅳ组(小针刀配合中药定向药透治疗)显效率优于其他3组。4组患者治疗前与治疗后VAS评分差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05),4组间临床痊愈所需时间比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);治疗Ⅳ组(小针刀配合中药定向药透治疗)在疼痛减轻所需时间上优于其他3组。结论腰椎间盘突出症综合治疗方案优选研究,小针刀配合中药定向药透治疗腰椎间盘突出症疗效肯定,安全度高,值得在基层医院推广。

Objective To observe the clinical efficacy and security in patients with prolapse of lumbar intervertebral disc who treated by different therapy and provide the best therapy. Methods 212 patients with prolapse of lumbar intervertebral disc were divided into four groups. The treatment group I had 54 patients,the group II had 52 patients,the group III had 54 patients,the group IV had 52 patients,There were 4 courses. The method of score was visual analog scale which evaluated the degree of pain and efficacy,and recorded the security before and after treatment. Results After treatment,the effective rate of four groups was respectively 40. 74%,53. 85%,74. 07% and 84. 62%. The rate of group IV were much higher than those of other groups（ P〈0. 05）. There were significant difference of the VAS score in four group（ P〈0. 05）. There were significant difference of the recovery times（ P〈0. 05）. The time of relieve pain in group IV were much shorter than those in three groups. Conclusion The acupotomy and traditional Chinese medicine had better clinical efficacy and security for prolapse of lumbar intervertebral disc.