设为首页
加入收藏
联系我们
Email-Alert
 

    首页 | 杂志介绍 | 编委成员 | 审稿专家名录 | 投稿指南 | 订阅指南 | 过刊浏览 | 论著模板 | 综述模板 | 帮助

 
张桂芳,黄焕杰,余秋华,王楚怀,韩秀兰,张振发.脉冲调整技术和关节松动术治疗肩峰下撞击综合征的临床疗效对比[J].中国康复医学杂志,2018,(11):1273~1278
脉冲调整技术和关节松动术治疗肩峰下撞击综合征的临床疗效对比    点此下载全文
张桂芳  黄焕杰  余秋华  王楚怀  韩秀兰  张振发
中山大学附属第一医院东院康复医学科,广州,510700
基金项目:国家自然科学基金项目(81772434);广州市科技计划产学研重大专项(201704020122)
DOI:
摘要点击次数: 208
全文下载次数: 194
摘要:
      摘要 目的:比较脉冲调整技术和关节松动术对肩峰下撞击综合征患者的临床疗效。 方法:将38例肩峰下撞击综合征患者随机分为脉冲组(脉冲调整技术)和松动组(关节松动术)各19例。脉冲组进行脉冲调整技术治疗、常规理疗和运动训练,松动组进行关节松动术、常规理疗和运动训练。两组患者均进行12周治疗,并于治疗前和治疗第1周、第4周、第12周随访时采用VAS评分和CMS量表进行评估。 结果:治疗后第1周、第4周、第12周脉冲组VAS分数分别为2.4±1.3、1.2±1.0、0.9±0.9,CMS总分分别为76.5±11.0、84.3±8.8、89.0±7.1;松动组VAS分数分别为3.5±1.3、2.1±1.3、1.4±1.2,CMS总分分别为69.4±13.1、82.9±6.7、88.5±6.8。两组VAS分数和CMS总分组内对比差异均有显著性意义(P<0.01);治疗1周后,脉冲组VAS分数低于松动组,差异有显著性意义(P=0.008),脉冲组CMS评分中的疼痛得分、ADL得分均高于松动组,差异均有显著性意义(P=0.008,P=0.009);治疗4周后,脉冲组VAS分数低于松动组,差异有显著性意义(P=0.034),CMS评分中的疼痛得分高于松动组,差异有显著性意义(P=0.048)。 结论:在常规理疗和运动训练基础上论联合应用脉冲调整技术还是关节松动术,均能有效改善肩峰下撞击综合征患者肩部的疼痛和功能障碍。而脉冲调整技术与关节松动术相比,能在治疗早期更快地减轻疼痛并改善患者日常生活活动能力。
关键词:肩峰下撞击综合征  康复治疗  脉冲调整技术  关节松动术
The comparison of the effects between pulse adjust technique and mobilization in patients with subacromial impingement syndrome    Download Fulltext
The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510700
Fund Project:
Abstract:
      Abstract Objective: To compare the effects between pulse adjust technique and mobilization to patients with subacromial impingement syndrome. Method: 38 cases with subacromial impingement syndrome were randomly divided into pulse group (pulse adjust technique) and mobilization group (mobilization). The pulse group received pulse adjust technique therapy, conventional rehabilitation therapy and exercise training, while the mobilization group received mobilization, conventional rehabilitation and exercise training. The treatment for both two groups lasted for twelve weeks. All the patients were asked to complete visual analogue scale (VAS) and Constant-Murley scale (CMS) before the treatment, one week, four weeks and twelve weeks after treatment. Result: The VAS scores of pulse group were 2.4±1.3,1.2±1.0 and 0.9±0.9 for 1,4,12 weeks treatment respectively; The VAS scores of mobilization group were 3.5±1.3, 2.1±1.3 and 1.4±1.2; The CMS scores of mobilization group were 69.4±13.1,82.9±6.7 and 88.5±6.8. There were significant differences in VAS and CMS scores between before and after treatment for each group(P<0.01). After one week, the VAS score of pulse group was significantly lower than that of mobilization group(P=0.008); the scores of pain and ADL subscales in CMS(P=0.008, P=0.009, respectively) were significantly higher than those in mobilization group. After four weeks, the VAS score of pulse group was significantly lower than that of mobilization group(P=0.034); the scores of pain subscale in CMS(P=0.048) were significantly higher than those in mobilization group. Conclusion: The pain and dysfunction of the patients with subacromial impingement syndrome could be improved no matter after the pulse adjust technique and mobilization with the conventional rehabilitation and exercise training. However, pulse adjust technique could better reduce the pain and enhance the ADL function at the early phase of treatment than mobilization.
Keywords:subacromial impingement syndrome  rehabilitation therapy  pulse adjust technique  mobilization
查看全文  查看/发表评论  下载PDF阅读器

您是本站第 17526568 位访问者

版权所有:中国康复医学会
主管单位:国家卫生和计划生育委员会 主办单位:中国康复医学会
地址:北京市朝阳区樱花园东街,中日友好医院内   邮政编码:100029   电话:010-64218095   

本系统由北京勤云科技发展有限公司设计 京ICP备10000329号