文章摘要
高斌礼,谷宇,吉浩宇,等.体外冲击波与超声波治疗轻中度腕管综合征的疗效对比.骨科,2022,13(1): 16-19.
体外冲击波与超声波治疗轻中度腕管综合征的疗效对比
Comparison of the Effectiveness of Extracorporeal Shock Wave vs. Ultrasound in the Treatment of Mild to Moderate Carpal Tunnel Syndrome
投稿时间:2021-05-21  
DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8573.2022.01.005
中文关键词: 腕管综合征  体外冲击波  超声波  治疗
英文关键词: Carpal tunnel syndrome  Extracorporeal shock wave  Ultrasound  Treatment
基金项目:内蒙古自治区高等学校科学研究项目(NJZZ20130)
作者单位E-mail
高斌礼 内蒙古医科大学附属医院骨科呼和浩特 010050  
谷宇 呼伦贝尔市第二人民医院骨科内蒙古呼伦贝尔 162650  
吉浩宇 内蒙古医科大学附属医院骨科呼和浩特 010050 13904719739@163.com 
刘亚欧 内蒙古医科大学附属医院骨科呼和浩特 010050  
丁远哲 内蒙古医科大学呼和浩特 010107  
焦志超 内蒙古医科大学呼和浩特 010107  
摘要点击次数: 510
全文下载次数: 554
中文摘要:
      目的 对比体外冲击波疗法(extracorporeal shock wave therapy,ESWT)与超声波疗法(ultrasound therapy,UST)治疗轻中度腕管综合征的疗效。方法 收集内蒙古医科大学附属医院骨科2019年1月至2020年1月期间诊治的72例腕管综合征病人,随机分为ESWT组和UST组,每组36例,分别给予ESWT治疗、UST治疗,疗程共4周,在治疗前和治疗后4、12周分别采用疼痛视觉模拟量表(visual analogue scale,VAS)、波士顿腕管综合征评分量表(Boston carpal tunnel questionnaire,BCTQ)以及中华医学会手外科学会上肢功能评定标准评价病人的临床疗效。结果 两组病人在治疗后4、12周的VAS评分、BCTQ症状评分和BCTQ功能评分均较治疗前显著改善(P<0.05),ESWT组在治疗后12周的VAS评分、BCTQ症状评分和BCTQ功能评分显著低于同期UST组(P<0.05),但两组病人治疗后4周的上述评分比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。ESWT组病人的治疗优良率明显高于UST组(P<0.05),但两组病人的治疗有效率相比,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。两组均未见其他明显不良反应。结论 ESWT和UST均可作为轻中度腕管综合征的保守治疗方法,但ESWT的疗效持续时间更长,在改善临床症状方面更优。
英文摘要:
      Objective To compare the efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) vs. ultrasound therapy (UST) in the treatment of mild to moderate carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). Methods A total of 72 CTS patients diagnosed and treated from January 2019 to January 2020 were randomly divided into ESWT group and UST group, with 36 cases in each group. The ESWT group was given ESWT treatment, and the UST group was given UST treatment. The course of treatment was 4 weeks. Visual analogue scale (VAS), Boston Questionnaire Scale (BCTQ) and upper limb function evaluation standard of Hand Surgery Society of Chinese Medical Association were used to evaluate the clinical effect before and after 4 and 12 weeks of treatment. Results The VAS scores, BCTQ symptom scores and BCTQ function scores in the two groups at 4th and 12th week after treatment were significantly improved as compared with those before treatment (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in VAS scores and BCTQ symptom scores between the two groups at 4th week after treatment (P>0.05), but the VAS score, BCTQ symptom score and BCTQ function score in the ESWT group at 12 weeks after treatment were significantly lower than those in the UST group during the same period (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the effective rate between the two groups (P>0.05), but the excellent and good rate in the ESWT group was significantly higher than that in the UST group (P<0.05). There were no other obvious adverse reactions in the two groups. Conclusion Both ESWT and UST can be used as conservative treatments for patients with mild to moderate CTS, but the ESWT sustains the longer efficacy and is better in improving clinical symptoms.
查看全文   下载PDF阅读器
关闭