| Objective: Observation of Adding and Subtracting the traditionalchinese medicine Du Huo Ji Sheng Tang by Improved treatment ofdegenerative LSS (kidney deficient, qi and blood deficiency type) ofclinical efficacy, to explore how to use this can be more skilled in clinicalprescription to add and subtract with bed rest and back muscle exercisetherapy for LSS.Method: In this case, from July2009to March2012in HuBei provinceChinese medicine hospital treated patients, were confirmed by clinicalsymptoms, signs, imaging examination for degenerative LSS, and aftertwo deficient syndrome differentiation of traditional chinese medicine asliver and kidney, insufficiency of qi and blood type. According toinclusion criteria, exclusion criteria selection conforms to therequirements of the73cases of LSS patients, using parallel controlledrandom number table method, observation group36cases, on thebasis of clinical application of modified live with the Du Huo Ji ShengTang by Improved in the add and subtract treatment.37cases, weretreated Yao Bi Tong capsule oral treatment. Two groups of patientsafter treatment with reference to reference the assessed the efficacy ofdisease diagnosis of TCM curative effect standard. Two groups of patients with gender, age, course of diseases, segmental, clinicalclassification and so on various aspects of comparison were notstatistically significant, comparable. Observe two groups of patientsbefore and after treatment1week,3weeks,6weeks and9weeks,1year of clinical symptoms, signs, and daily activities, and using standardJOA score. Application of SPSS16.0statistical software analysis (P <0.05for the difference is statistically significant). According to JOAscoring system for patients with various aspects of change. Accordingto JOA score calculated average period, improve all aspects of overallevaluation of patients. Before and after treatment1week,3weeks,6weeks and9weeks to review patient’s liver and kidney function and thebiochemical indicators, observed the effects of drugs on patients,comprehensive the above situation to evaluate the clinical curativeeffect.Result: All cases received follow-up, follow-up of11～15months, anaverage of12.6months. VAS score comparison:(1) the observationgroup and control group after1week treatment VAS score (7.83±0.78),respectively (7.65±0.99) to (7.46±0.99),(7.39±1.12), the comparison inthe group P values were greater than0.05, no difference of statistics,shows that after1week treatment pain relief is not obvious;Comparison between the two groups of t=0.2440, P>0.2440, nodifference of statistics, shows that after treatment for1week about thesame two groups of curative effect.(2) the observation group andcontrol group after3weeks treatment VAS score dropped to (5.45±1.25), respectively (5.47±1.38), the comparison in the group P valueswere less than0.05, statistically significant, that after3weeks oftreatment were pain relief; Comparison between the two groups oft=0.0492, P>0.0492, no difference of statistics, shows that after treatment for3weeks about the same two groups of curative effect.(3)the observation group and control group after6weeks treatment VASscore dropped to respectively (2.24±1.53),(3.66±1.54), the comparisonin the group P values were less than0.05, statistically significant, thatsix weeks after the treatment were pain relief; Comparison between thetwo groups of t=2.5741, P<0.05, the statistical difference, indicating thesignificant difference between the two groups of curative effect after6weeks treatment.(4) the9weeks observation group and control groupafter treatment VAS score dropped to (1.77±1.57), respectively (3.25±1.82), within the group to compare the P values were less than0.05,statistically significant, that9weeks after the treatment were pain relief;Comparison between the two groups of t=2.1840, P<0.05, the statisticaldifference of9weeks after the treatment there are differences betweenthe two groups of curative effect. JOA score comparison:(1) theobservation group and control group after1week treatment JOA score(11.56±1.37), respectively (12.13±1.55) to (12.73±2.06),(13.07±2.43),the comparison in the group P values were greater than0.05, nodifference of statistics, after1week treatment function had no obviousimprovement; Comparison between the two groups of t=0.2856,P>0.2856, shows that two groups of curative effect after1weektreatment are roughly equal.(2) the observation group and controlgroup after3weeks treatment JOA score rose (17.38±3.36),(16.81±3.27), the comparison in the group P values were less than0.05, thestatistical difference,3weeks after the treatment function weresignificantly improved; Comparison between the two groups of t=0.2216,P>0.2216, no difference of statistics, shows that after treatment for3weeks about the same two groups of curative effect.(3) the observationgroup and control group after6weeks treatment JOA score rose (24.42 ±2.87),(20.72±2.44), the comparison in the group P values were lessthan0.05, there are differences between the statistical, explain functionwere improved significantly after6weeks treatment; Comparisonbetween the two groups of t=2.2326, P<0.05, the statistical difference oftwo groups of curative effect after6weeks treatment has the difference.(4) after9weeks treatment of the observation group and control groupJOA score rose (27.34±2.37),(23.41±3.18), the comparison in thegroup P values were less than0.05, there are differences between thestatistical,9weeks after the treatment function were significantlyimproved; Comparison between the two groups of t=2.1260, P<0.05,the statistical difference of9weeks after the treatment the curativeeffect is similar between the two groups. Two groups of patients aftertreatment1year follow-up period (JOA) score more, observation group6cases,17cases,10cases,3cases,84.75%effective period; In thecontrol group3cases,12cases,15cases,7cases,66.86%averageperiod; Observation period is significantly higher than the control group.Two groups of patients with1year follow-up after treatment withreference to the assessed the efficacy of disease diagnosis of TCMcurative effect standard, observation group cure6cases, improvementin27cases,3cases not cured, total effective rate91.67%; Controlgroup cure3cases, improvement in27cases,7cases were not cured,the total effective rate was81.08%. Before and after treatment1week,3weeks,6weeks and9weeks review of the two groups of patients withliver and kidney function and the biochemical indicators, observed theeffects of drugs to patients. Two groups of patients during treatment noobvious discomfort, check liver kidney function, have no obviousabnormal after treatment.Conclusion： Through the clinical research, in the treatment of degenerative LSS in treatment group were better than the control group,in patients with LSS take oral live with the Du Huo Ji Sheng Tang byImproved method with low back muscle function exercise, has obtainedthe satisfactory curative effect, in the conservative treatment, thistreatment is a safe and effective method of treatment of LSS, worthy offurther popularization in clinical use. |
PDF Full Text Request