| ObjectiveTo observe the clinical efficacy of muscle meridian theory combined with fire filiform needle of post-stroke shoulder-hand syndrome stage I,and conduct a randomized controlled study in the clinic.At the same time,compare the conventional acupuncture therapy and evaluate the combination of muscle meridian theory and fire filiform needle therapy for the treatment of patients with this disease.The improvement of pain level,upper limb function and daily living ability,in order to find a treatment method that is safe,effective,simple,with few side effects and easy for patients to treat,and provides more effective clinical treatment for acupuncture treatment of this disease.evidence.MethodsUsing random number table method,60 patients diagnosed with post-stroke shoulder-hand syndrome were divided into two groups,30 in each group.All cases were from the acupuncture department of the Second Chinese Medicine Hospital of Guangdong Province,the inpatient department of the encephalopathy department and the outpatient department.The treatment group was treated with fire filiform needle combined with the muscle meridian theory,and the control group was treated with conventional acupuncture.Visual analogue scale(VAS)and simplified Fugl-Meyer Assessment(FMA)upper limbs,activities of daily living(ADL)(Barthel)were recorded separately before and after treatment.Index),to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment in patients,to evaluate the effectiveness of the two groups of treatment.Results1.Before treatment,the gender comparison was performed by chi-square test:X2=0.287,P=0.592(P>0.05);age comparison by two-sample t test,t=-1.039,P=0.304(P>0.05);Comparison of disease duration,by two-sample t test,t=0.579,P=0.565(P>0.05);primary disease comparison,by fisher test,P=0.706(P>0.05).The differences were not statistically significant,and the baseline data were consistent and comparable.2.VAS score:?By two-sample t test,the pre-treatment VAS scores of the two groups were compared,t=0.425,P=0.673(P>0.05),the difference was not statistically significant and comparable.?By paired t test,the treatment group before and after treatment,t=11.547,P<0.01,the difference was very statistically significant;?By paired t test,the control group was compared before and after treatment,t=5.980,P<0.01,the difference was very statistically significant;?By two-sample t test,the two groups were compared after treatment,t=-2.831,P<0.01,the difference was very statistically significant;?By t test,the difference between the two groups before and after treatment,t=2.692,P<0.01,the difference was very statistically significant.3.FMA score:?By two-sample t test,the FMA scores of the two groups were compared before treatment,t=-0.277,P=0.783(P>0.05),the difference was not statistically significant and comparable.?By paired t test,the treatment group was compared before and after treatment,t=-7.242,P<0.01,the difference was very statistically significant;?By paired t test,the control group was compared before and after tr eatment,t=-7.317,P<0.01,the difference was very statistically significan t;?By two-sample t test,the two groups were compared after treatment,t=2.430,P=0.018(P<0.05),the difference was statistically significant;?By two-sample t test,the difference between the two groups before and after treatment,t=2.503,P=0.015(P<0.05),the difference was statistically significant.4.ADL score:?By two-sample t test,the preoperative ADL scores of the two groups were compared,t=-0.549,P=0.554(P>0.05),the difference was not statistically significant and comparable.??By paired t test,the treatment group before and after treatment,t=-7.523,P<0.01,the difference was very statistically significant;?By paired t test,the control group was compared before and after treatment,t=-7.030,P<0.01,the difference was very statistically significant;?By two-sample t test,the two groups were compared after treatment,t=0.841,P=0.404(P>0.05),the difference was not statistically significant;?By two-sample t test,the difference between the two groups before and after treatment,t=1.441,P=0.155(P>0.05),the difference was not statistically significant.5.Comparison of overall efficacy between the two groups of patients:After treatment,the treatment group was cured in 3 cases,markedly effective in 13 cases,effective in 8 cases,ineffective in 6 cases,total effective rate was 80.00%;control group cured in 1 case,markedly effective in 10 cases,effective in 11 cases,ineffective in 9 cases,total effective rate 73.33%.After the rank sum test,the overall efficacy of the two groups was compared,z=-107.393,P<0.01,the difference was very statistically significant.Conclusion1.The combination of muscle meridian theory and fire filiform needle and conventional acupuncture therapy can effectively treat the pain of post-stroke shoulder-hand syndrome stage I,improve the upper limb activity and improve the daily living activities of patients.2.The combination of muscle meridian theory and fire filiform needle therapy is superior to conventional acupuncture in improving pain and upper limb function,and the effect of the two is equivalent in improving the daily activities of patients.3.The combination of muscle meridian theory and fire filiform needle therapy is an effective,simple and economical comprehensive therapy,and there is no obvious adverse reaction during the treatment process,which is worthy of clinical promotion. |
PDF Full Text Request