| Objectives To determine the therapeutic effect differences between rehabilitation treatment with movement predominant and conventional therapy by treating coal workers’ pneumoconiosis(CWP) patients of Datong Coal Mine Group in Shanxi, it can provide scientific basis for formulate CWP rehabilitation standards.Methods 100 CWP patients which are in occupational disease prevention and treatment hospital of Datong Coal Mine Group were randomly divides into the control group and the experimental group, each group 50 examples. The control group adopted conventional treatment(oxygen, atomization and general drugs), the experimental group adopted 12 months rehabilitation treatment with movement predominant based on the conventional treatment intervention measures. 6 minutes walking distance(6MWD), pulmonary function testing index, the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire(SGRQ), quality of life questionnaire(SF-36), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale(HADS), C-reactive protein(CRP) and leptin(LP) are adopted to evaluate the exercise capacity, respiratory conditions, survival quality and inflammatory reaction of two groups patients.Results The 6MWD difference was no significant between before and after treatment in control group(t=0.795, P>0.05). The 6MWD of experimental group before and after treatment were(513.24±71.78)m and(570.39±58.57)m respectively, the difference was statistically significant(t=7.503, P<0.001). After treatment, experimental group 6MWD was higher than the control group 6MWD, the difference was statistically significant between the two groups(t=6.014, P<0.001). BMI differences were significant between before and after treatment in control group(t=2.974, P<0.05). The BMI differences were significant between before and after treatment in experimental group(t=4.113, P<0.001).After treatment, BMI differences was no statistically significant between the experimental group and control group(P>0.05). The VC difference was no significant between before and after treatment in control group(t=0.859, P>0.05). The VC of experimental group before and after treatment were(4.35±0.73)L and(4.73±0.71)L respectively, the difference was statistically significant(t=10.850, P<0.001). After treatment, experimental group VC was higher than the control group VC, the difference was statistically significant between the two groups(t=2.546, P<0.05). The FVC difference was no significant between before and after treatment in control group(P>0.05), the FVC of experimental group before and after treatment were(4.31±0.74)L and(4.67±0.72)L respectively, the difference was statistically significant(t=8.911, P<0.001). After treatment, experimental group FVC was higher than the control group FVC, the difference was statistically significant between the two groups(t=2.192, P<0.05). The FEV1.0% difference was no significant between control group and experimental group after treatment(P>0.05). V25, V50 and V75 differences were no statistically significant between the experimental group and control group before and after treatment(P>0.05). The respiratory symptom scores of control group before and after treatment was(33.45±18.36) and(22.84±11.33) respectively, the difference was statistically significant(t=4.804, P<0.001). There were differences in mobility and impacts aspects of SQRG was statistically significant(P<0.05). After treatment, experimental group various parts scores of SQRG was lower than the control group scores, the various parts scores difference were statistically significant between the two groups(P<0.001). The control group patients before and after treatment anxiety showed positive, respectively 2 and 3. The experimental group before and after treatmentanxiety showed positive, respectively 3 and 0. The number differences were no significant in both groups(P>0.05). The LP difference was no significant between before and after treatment in control group(P>0.05). The LP of experimental group before and after treatment were(1.12±0.59)μg/L,(0.67±0.30)μg/L respectively, the difference was statistically significant(t=7.310, P<0.001). After treatment, experimental group LP expression was lower than the control group LP expression, the difference was statistically significant between the two groups(t=4.275, P<0.001). The CRP difference was significant between before and after treatment in control group and experimental group(t=2.449, P<0.05). The control group patients before and after treatment CRP showed positive, respectively 1 and 9. The experimental group before and after treatment CRP showed positive, respectively 2 and 6. The number differences were no significant in both groups(P>0.05). There was significant negative relationship between 6MWD and SQRG(R=﹣0.503, P<0.001). There was significant negative relationship between SQRG and VC(R=﹣ 0.197, P<0.001). There was significant positive relationship between 6MWD and VC(R=0.184, P<0.05).Conclusions 1 CWP patients increase the 6MWD, increase athletic stamina and improve athletic performance after rehabilitation therapy based on movement. 2 Rehabilitation therapy can improves CWP patients’ respiratory symptoms, activity ability and the quality of patient’s daily life. 3 Rehabilitation therapy improves lung function, VC and FVC of CWP patients. 4 Rehabilitation treatment cut down the expression levels of LP in patients with CWP. 5 SQRG has a negative relationship with 6MWD, VC respectively.6MWD has a positive relationship with VC. |
PDF Full Text Request