【作者】 左甲；

【导师】 杨运宽；

【作者基本信息】 成都中医药大学 ， 针灸推拿学， 2010， 硕士

【摘要】 目的：本研究采用随机对照试验的方法,对铺棉灸结合电针治疗带状疱疹与常规西药疗法进行疗效比较研究。方法：采用中央随机方法,选取自2008年1月4日至2008年12月31日的71例病例,其中剔除2例。治疗组采用铺棉灸结合电针的方法(n=36),对照采用常规西药疗法(n=33)。采用综合疗效评分、疱疹指标、疼痛指标、单项症候评分、安全性指标和耐受性指标等对两组进行疗效评价,以综合评定铺棉灸结合电针的疗法对于带状疱疹的临床治疗应用。结果：1.基线情况比较：两组基线状况良好,分组均衡,具有可比性(P>0.05)。2.综合疗效比较：治疗组治疗带状疱疹疗效显著,总有效率为97.3%,与对照组比较,差别无统计学意义(P>0.05)。在症候总积分方面,虽有显著改善,但与对照组相比,差别无统计学意义(P>0.05)。3.疱疹指标比较：治疗组可以缩短结痂时间,与对照组比较,差别有统计学意义(P<0.05)；止疱时间及脱痂时间比较,差别无统计学意义(P>0.05)。4.疼痛指标比较：①治疗组在疼痛强度、疼痛持续时间与疼痛缓解程度方面,治疗组优于对照组,且比较差别有统计学意义(P<0.05)；疼痛缓解时间比较,差别无统计学意义(P>0.05)。②带状疱疹后遗神经痛发生率比较,第30天治疗组优于对照组(P<0.05)。5.单项症候评分比较：两组均可对皮损面积、局部痒和促使水疱增多有所改善,但组间比较,差别无统计学意义(P>0.05)。6.安全性指标比较：两组的安全性均较好,差别无统计学意义(P>0.05)。7.耐受性指标比较：两组耐受性比较,差别无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论：1.铺棉灸结合电针治疗带状疱疹疗效确切,不亚于常规西药疗法。2.在促使疱疹结痂、降低疼痛强度、减少疼痛持续时间、降低带状疱疹后遗神经痛的发生方面,明显优于常规西药疗法。3.铺棉灸结合电针在治疗带状疱疹过程中,操作性好、副作用少、安全性高、成本低廉、易于接受,适宜于临床推广。更多还原

【Abstract】 Objective:To compare the clinical effect for HZ between the thin membrane cotton moxibustion (TMCM) combined with electropuncture (EA) method and western medicine treatment according to the RCT method。Methods:There were 71 cases randomly divided into the treatment group and control group, all the cases were the HZ patients from January 4,2008 to December 31,2008, and tow of them were knockout。We treated the treatment group with TMCM combined with EA (n=36), and the control group with western medicine (n=33)。We evaluated the clinical effectiveness between two groups by the total effective scale, the index of HZ and pain, single symptom scale, the safety index, as well as the tolerance index。Therefore, to evaluate the clinical application of TMCM combined with EA for the HZ。Result:1.To compare the base line conditions:The base line conditions of two groups were satisfactory with good proportionality, could observe comparable (P>0.05)。2. To compare the total therapeutic effect:The therapeutic effect of treatment group was special, total effective rate was high as 97.3%, but there was no comparability and statistical significance of the total symptom scores between two groups (P>0.05), although the symptoms of treatment group were improved markedly。3. To compare the index of HZ:The scab time of treatment group was shorter than the control group, there were significant differences between two groups (P<0.05); But there was no obvious difference in the removing herpes and turning eschar time of two groups (P>0.05)。4. To compare the index of pain:①The treatment group was superior to the control group in the pain intensity(PI), pain duration(PD), and pain reduction (PAR), it was significantly different(P>0.05); on the contrary, the comparison of alleviating pain time has no significant difference (P>0.05)。②The recurrence rate of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) on the thirtieth days, the treatment group was lower than the control group (P<0.05)。5. The comparison of single symptom scale:Both groups could improve the symptoms, such as the lesion size, local itching, as well as the blisters, but there was no statistic difference between two groups (P>0.05)。6. To compare the safety index:Both groups were safe, no statistic difference (P>0.05)。7. To compare the duration:There was no statistic difference (P>0.05)。Conclusion:1. The treatment of TMCM combined with EA showed significant effect on the HZ, as effective as the western medicine。2. The treatment group was superior to the control group on the effects of promoting the escharing, reducing the pain, shortening the time of pain, and decreasing the occurrence of PHN。3. The method of TMCM combined with EA has so many advantages, such as easy operation, less side effect, safe, low cost, easy to be accepted, therefore, this method is proper for the clinical application and further development。更多还原