| Object iveThis clinical study was used randomized controlled design,80cases of Stroke hemiplegia syndrome(SHS) patients according to the principle of randomly divided into2groups, namely control group by traditional acupuncture treatment, treatment group with acupuncture and chiropractic therapy, were observed and compared.7days for a course of treatment, limited to6courses of treatment. And then, the ADL score, hemiplegia after apoplexy recovery six stages of evaluation, FIM score, SF-36score, the total clinical efficacy evaluation criteria and evaluation of neural function defect were observed in experimental group two on apoplectic hemiplegia syndrome clinical efficacy, explores its theoretical basis, in order to better in clinical practice.MethodThe80cases object Whom meet the inclusion criteria according to the principle of randomly divided into2groups, the first group was used acupuncture and chiropractic therapy, the other was used by the traditional acupuncture, the control group by simple acupuncture therapy, acupuncture point selection using awaking brain and adusting mind, methods to dredge main and collateral channels, with hand Jueyin meridian, meridian and foot Taiyin meridian. The treatment group with acupuncture and chiropractic treatment: the acupuncture treatment, but also with chiropractic therapy. Patients with left (right) hand thumb to patients with spine, on the side to push the bar, respectively, to take point out knead technique to shujinhuoxue. And addition and subtraction with the disease:if the patients was facial distortion, plus retractable method; language disadvantage, plus thumb pressure method; high blood pressure, and sweep method; urinary incontinence, with dip method. Once a day, every30minutes. Treatment with acupuncture treatment group was the same. The two groups were treated once a day,7days for a course of treatment, interval of3days, up to6courses of treatment, a total of60days. After treatment using ADL score, hemiplegia after apoplexy recovery six stages of evaluation, FIM score, SF-36score, the total clinical efficacy evaluation criteria and evaluation of neural function defect were observed in experimental group two on apoplectic hemiplegia syndrome clinical efficacy.Statistical methods:classification of data with x2test, ranked data for two samples Wilcoxon test (calibration), two samples were compared using t test or Wilcoxon test, the t test for comparison or Wilcoxon paired rank sum test.Result1. Before treatment, the control group and the treatment group gender composition, age and ADL score, hemiplegia after apoplexy recovery six stages of evaluation, FIM score and SF-36score, p>0.05.2. The comparison between two groups using ADL scoreThrough the independent sample T test, T=-5.051(p=0.000), p<0.01, so two groups after the experiment, there were significant differences in ADL score. The treatment group was significantly better than the control group. The control group paired T test was showed, T=0.651(p=0.072), the control group before and after experimental comparison, there is no significant difference. Treatment group was used paired-T test showed, T=-6.002(p=0), p<0.05, before and after the experiment, ADL score of treatment group had significant difference. ADL score of treatment group was significantly increased, according to the ADL score standard, with a total living ability improvement from moderate to mild dependence dependence,while the control group did not change significantly.3. The comparison between two groups using post-stroke hemiplegia recovery six stages of evaluation scale for BrunstronAfter treatment, the test was found that:Z=-2.517, p=0.012; p<0.05, suggested that after the experiment, two groups for post-stroke hemiplegia recovery six stages of evaluation scale Brunstron determination, there was a significant difference in stage. The control group before and after the six stage, recovery evaluation scale Brunstron determination of hemiplegia after stroke, Z=-1.289, p=0.197, indicated control group for hemiplegia after apoplexy recover without significant difference. Before and after the treatment group, recovery six stages of evaluation scale for Brunstron determination of hemiplegia after stroke, Z=-3.174, p=0.002, p<0.05. it indicated that the treatment group for post-stroke hemiplegia recovery had significant difference.4. Comparison of two groups with FIM score standardThrough the independent sample T test, T=-7.003(p=0.000), p<0.01, so the treatment group compared with the control group, the two groups before and after treatment FIM score improvement have significant differences. Before and after treatment were compared, the control group before and after treatment, through independent sample T test, T=-1.243(p=0.042), because p<0.05, in the control group before and after treatment, there were significant differences in FIM score. Before and after treatment were compared, the treatment group before and after the treatment, through independent sample T test, T=-6.117(p=0.000), because p<0.05, it indicated that in the control group before and after treatment, there were significant differences in FIM score.5. Comparison of two groups with SF-36score standardThrough the independent sample T test, T=-6.002(p=0.000), p<0.01, so the treatment group compared with the control group, the two groups before and after treatment SF-36score improvement was significant difference. Before and after treatment were compared, the control group before and after treatment, through independent sample T test, T=-1.117(p=0.030), p<0.05, it indicated that in the control group before and after treatment, there were significant differences in SF-36score. Before and after treatment were compared, the treatment group before and after the treatment, through independent sample T test, T=-5.747(p=0.000), p<0.01, it indicated that in the treatment group before and after the treatment, there was also a significant difference in SF-36score.6. Comparison of two groups with the standard evaluation of clinical application of the total curative effectAfter the rank sum test, Z=-2.823(p=0.005), the p<0.01, so the treatment group compared with the control group, the overall effect has significant difference. The overall effect of the treatment group was significantly better than the control group. 7. Comparison of two groups with neural function defect assessment standardsAfter the rank sum test, Z=-2.776(p=0.006), p<0.01, so the treatment group compared with the control group, the neurological deficit score change has significant difference. The treatment group of neural function defect of the change scores better than the control group.Conclusion1. Before treatment, two group in the experimental group in gender, age and ADL score, hemiplegia after apoplexy recovery six stages of evaluation, FIM score and SF-36score were not significant differences, the two groups were comparable.2. After the experiment, the treatment group two ADL score, ADL score of treatment group was significantly increased, according to the ADL score standard, with a total living ability improvement from moderate to mild dependence dependence, while the control group before and after treatment no significant change.3. Afterthe experiment, experimental group with application of post-stroke hemiplegia recovery six stages of evaluation scale compared to Brunstron assay, the control group for the stroke hemiplegia recovery without significant difference. There was a significant difference between the treatment group for stroke recovery. The treatment group can be effective in improving post-stroke hemiplegia recovery stage.4. After the experiment, with FIM score standard, the treatment group was better than the control group. And, before and after treatment compared, the control group and the treatment group all can significantly improve FIM score.5. After the experiment, with SF-36score standard, two groups of SF-36score improvement was significant difference. The treatment group was better than the control group. And, before and after treatment compared, the control group and the treatment group can significantly improve SF-36score.6. After the experiment, with evaluation standard in experiment group two clinical curative effect, treatment group and the control group compared, the overall effect has significant difference. The clinical curative effect in treatment group was significantly better than the control group.7. After the experiment, application of neural function defect evaluation criteria, the treatment group of neural function defect score change than the control group. |
PDF Full Text Request