To Compare And Analyze The Rehabilitation Effect Of Tertiary Rehabilitation Treatment Model And Secondary Rehabilitation Treatment Model On Children With Cerebral Palsy

Purpose To compare and analyze the rehabilitation effect of tertiary rehabilitation treatment model and secondary rehabilitation treatment model on children with cerebral palsy.Methods Selection in October 2017 to Sep 2018 for the first time in our hospital diagnosed with cerebral palsy and 132 cases hospitalized children,remove lost to follow-up and A variety of reasons cause the imperfect data of 32 cases,return 100 cases,according to the actual guardian chooses rehabilitation of different pattern,all into the group of children were divided into two groups,tertiary rehabilitation group(group A),secondary rehabilitation group(group B),each group of children with 50 cases.There were 28 males and 22 females in the group A,aged from April to 3 years and 6 months,with an average age of(1.74±0.74)years.There were 32 males and 18 females in the B group of secondary rehabilitation,aged from April to 2 years and 9months,with an average age of(1.61±0.65)years.The evaluation results of gross motor function(GMFM),development quotient(DQ)and activities of daily living(ADL)were recorded after 3 months of rehabilitation and 12 months of rehabilitation.Results1.Comparison of GMFM scores between group A and Group B before treatment,6 months after treatment,and 12 months after treatment: Group A scores before treatment(41.12 ± 19.22),6 months after treatment(55.13 ± 20.81),and 12 months after treatment(63.22±19.83).The scores of group B were 37.47±15.94 before treatment,46.62 ± 16.49 after 6 months and 55.21 ± 16.34 after 12 months.The comparison t values of group A and Group B before,6 months and 12 months of treatment were 1.022,2.241 and 2.182,respectively.P values were 0.309,0.027 and0.031,respectively.(1)Independent sample T-test was performed before treatment in group A and Group B,P<0.05;There was no difference between the two groups before treatment.(2)Comparison between groups A and B showed that under the condition of the same treatment time,the improvement of gross motor function in the level-iii rehabilitation model was significantly higher than that in the level-II rehabilitation model.Applying the independent sample T test,P>0.05 was statistically significant.2.Comparison of DQ scores between group A and Group B before treatment,6 months after treatment,and 12 months after treatment: Scores of group A before treatment(16.38±5.06),6 months(27.80±11.17),and 12 months after treatment(40.36±12.56).The scores of group B after 3 months of treatment(16.20±4.85)and 6 months(20.43±6.13)after 12 months of treatment(28.79±7.98).T values of group A and Group B were0.178,4.055 and 5.447 before treatment,6 months after treatment and 12 months after treatment.P values were 0.889,0.001,and 0.001,respectively.(1)Comparison of groups A and B before treatment,independent sample T-test,P>0.05;There was no difference.(2)Comparison between groups A and B showed that under the condition of the same treatment time,tertiary rehabilitation mode training was more effective in improving the development of children than secondary rehabilitation mode.Applying the independent sample T test,P<0.05 was statistically significant.3.Comparison of ADL scores between group A and Group B before treatment,6 months after treatment,and 12 months after treatment: Scores of group A before treatment,6months after treatment,and 12 months after treatment were(9.65±4.32),(21.26±9.62),and(29.85±9.07).The scores of group B were(9.46±3.55)before treatment,(17.17±5.62)6 months after treatment,and(25.56±6.74)12 months after treatment.T values of group A and Group B were 0.219,2.357 and 2.449 before treatment,6 months after treatment and 12 months after treatment.P values are 0.827,0.021 and 0.016,respectively.(1)A and B were compared before treatment,and independent sample T-test was applied,P>0.05 indicates no significant difference and comparability.(2)Comparison between groups A and B showed that under the condition of the same treatment time,the third-level rehabilitation model was more effective than the second-level rehabilitation model in improving the daily life ability of children.Applying the independent sample T test,P<0.05 was statistically significant.Conclusion The tertiary rehabilitation treatment model is better than the secondary rehabilitation treatment model in terms of children with cerebral palsy.