肢体气压治疗不同程度2型糖尿病周围神经病变的疗效比较

目的探讨肢体气压治疗不同程度2型糖尿病周围神经病变(VPT)的疗效方法通过振动觉阄值(VPT)测定联合神经传导速度(NCV)诊断DPN患者80例,结合临床症状评分分为有症状组40例、无症状组40例有症状组患者随机分为A和B两个亚组,无症状组患者随机分为C和D两个亚组,每个亚组各20例A组和C组进行常觇基础治疗,B组和D组在常规基础治疗上加用肢体气压治疗,观察比较四个亚组患者的疗效差异结果治疗前无症状亚组(C和D)患者,其NCV(包括腓浅和腓肠神经的SCV和腓总和胫神经的MCV)均高于有症状亚组(A和13)患者,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)A、B、C、D四个亚组DPN患者治疗后NCV均高于各亚组治疗前NCV,但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);在常规治疗基础上加用肢体气压治疗,NCV数值测定高于常规治疗组:B组大于A组,D组大于C组,但差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)四组DPN患者中,B组与A组治疗前后的NCV差值比较、D组与C组治疗前后的NCV差值比较均无统计学意义(P>0.05)无论是否加用肢体气压治疗,A、13、C、D四组DPN患者,治疗后各组患者的临床症状评分均低于治疗前(P<0.01)。结论在常规治疗基础上加用肢体气压治疗,对于不同程度DPN患者,虽无法明显提高NCV,但可以明显改善患者的临床症状评分,具有非常重要的意义.

Objective To investigate the efect of limb intermittent pneumatic compression on different degrees of type 2 diabetic peripheral neuropathy(DPN),Methods 80 patients with DPN were diagnosed by vibration perception threshold(VPT)combined with nerve conduction velocity(NCV).Then according to the clinical symptom scores,the patients were divided into sympromatic group(n=40)and asymptomatic group(n=40).The symptomatic group was randomly divided into two groups:group A and group B.The asymptomatic group was randomly divided into two groups:group C and group D.There were 20 cases in each of the four groups.Group A and group C were treated with routine basic tre atment,group B and group D were trated with routine basic treatment combined with limb intermittent pneumatic compression.Then the eficacy diferences of the four groups were observed and compared.Results 1.Before the treatment,the results of NCV(including sensory nerve conduction velocity of the superficial gastrocnemius and gastrocnemius nerve and motor nerve conduction velocity of the common peroneal and tibial nerves)of asymptomatic DPN groups(group C and D)were higher than symptomatic groups(group A and B)。The dfferences were stisically significant(P<0.05)。2.The results ofNCV in A,B,C and D groups after treatment were higher than the results before treatment,but there was no statistical significance(P>0.05)。in the routine basic treatment combined limb intermittent pneumatic compression groups,the results of NCV were higher than that in the routine basic treatment groups:group B was greater than group A.group D was greater than group C,but there was no statistical significance(P>0.05).3.In these four groups.whether before or after treatment.there were no staistically significant diference in NCV between the between group B and group A.or:between group D and group C(P>0.05).4.Whether or not combined with limb intermittent pneumatic compression,the clinical symptom scores of patients with DPN in group A.B,C and D were lower than those before treatment(P<0.01).Conclusion In the routine basic treatment combined with limb intermittent pneumatic compression,for patients with diferent degrees of DPN,NCV can not be signicanly improved,but the symptom scores are significantly improved,it has very important clinical significance.