| Research Background:In recent years,with the change of lifestyle,cervical spondylosis has become a modern disease that accompanies modern society.Its incidence rate has been increasing year by year,showing a high prevalence rate and a younger age.Cervical cervical spondylosis is the earliest stage of cervical spondylosis,and is the embryonic state of other types of cervical spondylosis.The treatment of cervical cervical spondylosis is of positive significance for the prevention and further development of cervical spondylosis.Research purposes:Through a randomized controlled study comparing spin-puller-pulling combined with neck functional exercise and cervical traction combined with cervical functional exercise,the short-term efficacy,follow-up effect after one month of the two treatment methods,and short-term effects of improving various symptoms and signs of cervical spondylosis were observed.follow-up effect after one month,compare the superiority of the two treatment methods,and analyze the correlation between the effect of rotating care plate and cervical functional exercise on cervical cervical spondylopathy and age and disease course.To provide a more standardized and effective treatment for cervical cervical spondylosis clinical optimization program and clinical research basis.Research methods:In this study,62 patients with cervical cervical spondylosis were randomly divided into two groups.The experimental group was treated with spin career combined with cervical functional exercise,and the control group was treated with cervical traction combined with neck functional exercise.Treatment in the experimental group lasted 3 weeks,twice a week,for a total of 6 treatments(neck functional exercise 2 times a day,10 minutes each time for 3 weeks);control group treatment once daily for 3 weeks,a total of 15 times(Neck exercise with the experimental group).By comparing the symptom scores of the two groups before treatment,after the end of treatment,and after the end of treatment,the efficacy and effectiveness of the two treatment methods were observed.In addition,by comparing the efficacy indexes of various age groups and disease stages,the rotation support was analyzed.Pull-up method combined with neck functional exercise in the treatment of cervical cervical spondylopathy efficacy and age,duration of the correlation.Research result:1.Baseline dataA total of 62 patients with cervical cervical spondylosis were collected,1 in the experimental group and 1 in the control group.A total of 60 cases were collected.Among them,there were 30 cases in the test group and 30 cases in the control group.The experimental group consisted of 20 females and 10 males with an average age of 45.33± 13.23 years and an average disease course of 13.43±9.205 months.Among them,there were 5 cases with a daily lowering time of less than 2 hours,11 cases with 2 to 4 hours,and 2 to 4 hours.7 cases,7 cases over 6 hours.The control group consisted of 22 females and 8 males with a mean age of 46.30± 13.45 years and an average disease course of 10.67±7.165 months.Among them,8 cases were lower than 2 hours daily,8 cases were 2 to 4 hours,and 7 to 7 hours.Example,7 cases over 6 hours.2.Clinical index statistics2.1 clinical efficacy index2.1.1 Comparison of two groups of short-term efficacy indexAccording to the symptom score scale,the total scores after treatment and the total scores before treatment were compared to obtain the short-term efficacy index.The rank sum test was used for the short-term efficacy index of the test group and the control group,Z=-1.679,P=0.093>0.05 The results showed no statistically significant differences.2.1.2 Comparison of follow-up efficacy indexes after one months in two groupsAccording to the symptom score scale,the total follow-up points after 1 month and the total scores before treatment were compared,and the follow-up efficacy index was obtained after 1 month;the rank sum test of the follow-up efficacy index after 1 month in the experimental group and the control group was performed.Z=-1.894,P=0.058>0.05,the results showed no statistically significant difference.2.1.3 Comparison between short-term efficacy index of the experimental group and follow-up efficacy index after one monthComparing the therapeutic index of the experimental group and the follow-up after 1 month,using the rank sum test,we obtained Z=-0.784,P=0.433>0.05.The results showed that there was no significant difference between the short-term efficacy of the trial group and the follow-up efficacy after one month.2.1.4 Comparison between short-term efficacy index of the control group and follow-up efficacy index after 1 monthComparing the efficacy index of the control group and the follow-up after 1 month,using the rank sum test,we obtained Z=-0.980,P=0.327>0.05.The results showed that there was no significant difference between the short-term efficacy of the control group and the follow-up efficacy after one month.2.2 Pain points2.2.1 Comparison of pain points in the test groupComparing the treatment group's pain scores after treatment and pain scores before treatment with the experimental group,Z=-4.820,P<0.01,the difference was statistically significant.Comparing the treatment group's pain scores and pain scores before treatment in the comparison test group's treatment method,Z=-4.819,P<0.01,the difference was statistically significant.2.2.2 comparison of pain points in the control groupComparing the pain scores and pain scores after treatment between the control group and the treatment group,we obtained Z=-4.724,P<0.01,and the difference was statistically significant.Comparing the pain scores and pain scores before treatment between the control group and the treatment group for one month,Z=-4.644,P<0.01,the difference was statistically significant.2.2.3 Comparison of pain integral difference before and after treatment in the two groupsThe sum of differences in pain scores before and after treatment between the two groups was tested by rank sum test,and Z=-3.180,P<0.01 was obtained.The difference was statistically significant.2.2.4 Comparison of Pain Integral Differences Before and After Treatment in Two GroupsThe sum of pain scores before and after the treatment in both groups was tested by the rank sum test and obtained Z=-3.350,P<0.01.The difference was statistically significant.2.3 Activity Score2.3.1 Comparison of activity points in the test groupComparing the scores of the activity scores and the pre-treatment activity scores of the treatment group after treatment,there was Z=-4.625,P<0.01,and the difference was statistically significant.The scores of activity scores and pre-treatment activity scores after 1 month of treatment in the comparison test group treatment were obtained,Z=-4.490,P<0.01,and the difference was statistically significant.2.3.2 comparison of activity points in the control groupComparing the scores of activity scores and pre-treatment activity scores after treatment in the control group,Z=-3.945,P<0.01,the difference was statistically significant.Comparing the scores of activity scores and pre-treatment activity of the control group after treatment for 1 month,we obtained Z=-3.841,P<0.01,and the difference was statistically significant.2.3.3 comparison of activity difference before and after treatment in two groupsFor the two groups of patients,before and after treatment,the sum of differences in activity improvement scores was tested by rank sum test,and Z=-2.430 was obtained,P=0.015<0.05,and the difference was statistically significant.2.3.4 Comparison of Integral Differences in Activity Levels Before and After Treatment in Two GroupsThe rank sum test of the difference in activity between the two groups of patients before treatment and after one month was obtained,and it was found that Z=-1.572,P=0.116>0.05,and the difference was not statistically significant.2.4 tenderness points2.4.1 Comparison of tenderness scores in the test groupComparing the treatment group's tenderness scores and pre-treatment tenderness scores after comparing the experimental group's treatment,we obtained 2=-4.730,P<0.01,and the difference was statistically significant.Comparing the treatment group and the pre-treatment tenderness scores after 1 month of treatment in the comparative trial group,Z=-4.702,P<0.01,the difference was statistically significant.2.4.2 Comparison of tenderness points in the control groupComparing the control group's tenderness scores with the pre-treatment tenderness scores after treatment,we obtained Z=-4.750,P<0.01,and the difference was statistically significant.Comparing with the control group,the tenderness score and the pre-treatment tenderness score after 1 month treatment showed that Z=-4.875,P<0.01,the difference was statistically significant.2.4.3 Comparing the difference of tenderness before and after treatment in two groupsThe rank sum test of the tenderness integral scores before and after treatment for both groups of patients yielded Z=-1.582,P=0.114>0.05,and the difference was not statistically significant.2.4.4 Comparison of the difference in tenderness scores between the two groups before treatment and after JanuaryThe rank sum test of the difference in tenderness scores before and after treatment between the two groups of patients was obtained.Z=-1.647,P=0.1>0.05,and the difference was not statistically significant.2.5 Stiffness score2.5.1 Comparison of stiffness scores in the experimental groupComparing the treatment group's stiffness scores after treatment and stiffness scores before treatment,Z=-4.590,P<0.01,the difference was statistically significant.Comparing the treatment group's stiffness test scores and stiffness scores after treatment for 1 month after treatment,Z=-4.260,P<0.01,the difference was statistically significant.2.5.2 Comparison of stiffness scores in the control groupComparing the stiffness scores and stiffness scores before treatment between the control group and the treatment group,we obtained Z=-4.672,P<0.01,and the difference was statistically significant.Compared with the control group,the stiffness scores and stiffness scores before treatment were compared after treatment for one month.The control group had Z=-4.103,P<0.01,and the difference was statistically significant.2.5.3 Comparison of the difference of stiffness scores before and after treatment in the two groupsFor the two groups of patients before and after treatment on the improvement of the integration score of stiffness sensibility rank sum test,obtained Z =-1.380,P = 0.168>0.05,the difference was not statistically significant.2.5.4 Comparison of the difference in stiffness scores between the two groups before treatment and after JanuaryFor the two groups of patients before and after treatment,the sum of stiffness scores was tested by rank sum test,and it was found that Z=-0.406,P=0.685>0.05,and the difference was not statistically significant.3.Relationship between age and efficacy of experimental groupComparing the efficacy index of each age group in the experimental group,using the rank sum test,we obtained X2=4.282,P=0.369>0.05.The results showed that there was no significant difference in the efficacy of the test group at all ages.4.Relationship between course and efficacy of the experimental groupComparing the efficacy index of each disease segment in the experimental group,using the rank sum test,we obtained X2 = 6.603,P = 0.086>0.05.The results showed that there was no significant difference in the efficacy of each disease segment of the experimental group.5.Security observationsDuring the study,no significant adverse reactions occurred in both groups.Analysis conclusion:1.The two groups of treatment methods have clear short-term curative effect for neck cervical spondylosis and follow-up curative effect after one month,all can improve the symptoms and signs.2.However,the short-term efficacy of the rotating care plate method in the short-term efficacy of pain relief and follow-up after January,and the short-term improvement in activity was better than that in the control group.3.Rotational care plate method combined with neck functional exercise treatment of different age groups,different course of the neck cervical spondylosis the same effect. |
PDF Full Text Request