体外冲击波不同压强治疗肱骨外上髁炎的临床研究

CLINICAL STUDY ON THE TREATMENT OF LATERAL EPICONDYLITIS WITH DIFFERENT PRESSURE EXTRACORPOREAL SHOCK WAVES

目的:探讨不同压强条件下体外冲击波治疗肱骨外上髁炎的临床疗效。方法:选择90例肱骨外上髁炎病人根据治疗压强不同分为3组,每组30例,压强分别为1 bar、2 bar、3 bar。三组均每周治疗1次,连续治疗5次为一疗程。比较治疗前、末次治疗后1个月、3个月、6个月数字疼痛评分(numerical rating scales, NRS)和治疗相关的不良反应。结果:三组组内治疗后不同时点NRS评分均低于治疗前(P <0.05);II组和III组治疗后6个月NRS评分低于I组(P <0.05);II组和III组治疗后6个月NRS评分相比无明显变化(P> 0.05);II组和III组治疗后6个月优良率大于I组(P <0.05);III组不良反应(治疗后短期内疼痛加重)多于I组和II组(P <0.05)。结论:压强为2 bar的体外冲击波治疗肱骨外上髁炎的疗效确切且不良反应少,值得临床推广。

Objective: To investigate the clinical ef?cacy of different pressure extracorporeal shock waves in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis. Methods: A total of 90 patients with lateral epicondylitis were enrolled. According to different treatment pressure, the patients were divided into three groups: Group I, Group II, and Group III, and each group included 30 cases. The corresponding pressure was 1 bar, 2 bar and 3 bar, respectively. All three groups were treated once a week and ?ve consecutive treatments made a course of a treatment. NRS scores and treatment-related adverse events were compared before treatment, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after the last treatment. Results: The NRS scores at different time points after treatment in the three groups were signi?cantly lower than those before treatment. After 6 months of treatment, the NRS scores of Group II and III were signi?cantly lower than those of Group I. However, there was no signi?cant difference in NRS scores between Group II and III. The excellent rate of Group II and III was greater than Group I, and patients from Group III suffered more pain after treatment than Group I and II. Conclusion: The extracorporeal shock wave with a pressure of 2 bar is relatively effective in treating lateral epicondylitis with less adverse reactions.