Maitland手法配合脊柱脉冲治疗仪治疗腰腿痛的效果观察

Efficacy of Maitland approach combined with spinal pulse therapy instrument in treatment of low back pain

目的观察Maitland手法配合脊柱脉冲仪治疗腰腿痛的效果。方法将腰腿痛患者93例随机分为对照组(46例与观察组(47例),对照组应用Maitland手法治疗,观察组加用脊柱脉冲仪治疗,采用日本骨科协会(JOA)下腰痛评分判定疗效;在治疗前后,采用视觉模拟评分(VAS)评价患者脊柱双侧软组织压痛、腰腿痛症状,采用Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)评定腰椎功能障碍程度;并统计直腿抬高角度及治疗不良反应。结果观察组治愈19例,总有效率为93.62%;对照组治愈9例,总有效率为76.09%,观察组疗效优于对照组(P <0.05)。在治疗1 w、1个月及3个月,观察组各部位VAS评分和ODI指数均逐渐降低,抬腿角度均逐渐加大,且改善幅度均大于同时点对照组(P <0.05)。两组治疗期间均未发生不良反应。结论 Maitland手法配合脊柱脉冲仪治疗腰腿痛的效果优于单用Maitland手法,改善患者腰椎功能和下肢抬腿高度效果更显著,且无明显不良反应,值得推广应用。

Objective To observe the efficacy of Maitland approach combined with spinal pulse therapy instrument in treatment of low back pain. Methods A total of 93 patients with low back pain were randomly divided into a control group(n =46) and an observation group(n=47). Maitland approach was performed for the control group, and the Maitland approach combined with spinal pulse therapy instrument was conducted for the observation group. The efficacy was assessed with Japanese Orthopaedic Association(JOA) score for low back pain. Before and after treatment, visual analogue scale(VAS) was used to evaluate the symptoms of soft tissue tenderness and low back pain on both sides of the spine, and the Oswestry Disability Index(ODI) was used to assess the degree of disability for lumbar vertebra. The straight leg-raise angle and adverse reactions to treatment were statistically analyzed. Results In the observation group, 19 cases were cured, with the total effective rate of 93.62%;in the control group, nine cases were cured,with the total effective rate of 76.09%, which showed that the efficacy of the observation group was better than that of the control group(P < 0.05). At one week, one month and three months after the treatment, the VAS score and ODI index at all sites of the observation group gradually decreased, the leg-raise angle gradually increased, and the magnitude of improvement was greater than that of the control group for the same sites(P < 0.05). No adverse reactions occurred in either group during the treatment.Conclusion Maitland approach combined with spinal pulse therapy instrument has better efficacy than Maitland approach alone in treatment of low back pain, and shows more significant effect in improving the patients’ lumbar function and straight leg-raise angle,with no obvious adverse reactions, which is worthy of promotion.