| Purpose To explore the aging relationship between temple prick blood therapy and cupping therapy in treating migraine,and to observe and compare the differences in clinical efficacy between temple prick blood therapy and cupping therapy in treating migraine in acute stage and remission stage,so as to provide a basis for the selection of treatment timing and better guide clinical application.Methods Collect eligible 80 migraine patients,after signing of the informed consent,randomly divided into acute stage in medical order groups treatment group(group acute phase)and remission treatment group(the remission group),40 cases in each group.Acute treatment group,the remission group were using the temporal thorn blood cupping method.Specific operation is as follows:in the preoperative,and patients with simple first about the safety of the operation process and operation.The patient was placed in the sitting position,and the doctor rubbed around the temple of the patient for about 2min(with skin flushing as the degree).After routine disinfection,the patient was quickly punctured with a three-sided needle against the quasi-operative site,and the no.1 glass jar was quickly left at the operative site by means of flash fire,and the patient's head was tilted towards the operative side.After about 5min,the glass jar was removed.After the operation,the blood was removed and disinfected,and the bleeding point was pressed with sterile cotton swab for about 2-5min to prevent hematoma.Blood loss:3-5ml.Treatment course:once every 10 days,3 times for a course of treatment.After completion of treatment,respectively on two groups of patients with headache integral evaluation,scores of SDS and SAS scores and recent curative effect evaluation;Three months after the end of treatment,headache score scale was used to evaluate the long-term efficacy.Adverse reactions were recorded during the treatment.Follow-up:At the third month after the end of treatment,the treatment satisfaction of the two groups of subjects was investigated.The results(1)Comparison of general data:There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of gender,age,disease course,disease location,headache degree and other general data(P>0.05),suggesting comparability.(2)Comparison between the two groups before treatment:There were no statistically significant differences in headache scores,SAS scores and SDS scores between the two groups before treatment(P>0.05),suggesting comparability.(3)Comparison between groups after treatment:After the end of one course of treatment,there was a statistically significant difference in headache scores between the acute group and the remission group(P<0.05).There was no statistically significant difference in SAS and SDS scores between the two groups(P>0.05).Three months after the end of treatment,there was a statistically significant difference in headache scores between the two groups(P<0.05).(4)Intra-group comparison:After 1 course of treatment,intra-group comparison in the acute phase showed very significant differences in headache scores,SAS and SDS scores(P<0.001).There were significant differences in headache scores,SAS and SDS scores in the remission group(P<0.001).Three months after the end of treatment,the headache scores of the two groups were compared with those before treatment,and the intra-group comparison of headache scores of the acute group and the remission group showed very significant differences(P<0.001).(5)Clinical efficacy evaluation:short-term efficacy evaluation:There were statistically significant differences in short-term clinical efficacy between the two groups(P<0.05).The recovery rate and total effective rate were 55% and 97.5%,respectively,in the acute phase group.In remission group,the recovery rate and total effective rate were 30% and 87.5%,respectively.Long-term efficacy evaluation:there were statistically significant differences in long-term clinical efficacy between the acute phase group and the remission phase group(P<0.05).The recovery rates of the acute phase group and the remission phase group were 40% and 17.5% respectively.The total effective rate in acute phase and remission phase was 95% and 82.5%,respectively.(6)Comparison of treatment satisfaction between the two groups:Three months after the end of treatment,satisfaction rates of the acute phase group and the remission phase group were 91.43% and 83.87%,respectively.Conclusion(1)The temple pricking cupping therapy can effectively treat migraine in both acute and remission stages.However,the choice of acute treatment of migraine has better short-term and long-term efficacy,treatment satisfaction is higher.(2)The temple pricking cupping therapy for migraine patients with anxiety or depression has good effect,but the improvement and treatment timing of no relevance. |
PDF Full Text Request