| Purpose 1.To study the clinical efficacy of zen massage in total knee arthroplasty(TKA)andto quickly recover(Fast Track Surgery,FTS),to explore the pain,D-dimer,T-dimer,The role of postoperative joint function.2.To provide clinical practice basis for the establishment of TKA perioperativeperiod of integrated Chinese and Western medicine rapid rehabilitation program.MethodsAccording to whether patients were treated with TJ after the TKA,they weredivided into the massage group and the control group.The HSS score,pain visualanalogue score(VAS score),D-dimer test value and HSS score were comparedbetween the massage group and the control group.Function,activity,musclestrength,stability.Statistical analysis was performed on the joint function,postoperative pain,and D-dimer detection values at 3,7,and 14 days after TKA toevaluate the difference in efficacy between the massage group and the controlgroup.ResultsAnalysis of main efficacy results 1.HSS score comparison: There was significant difference between the control groupand the massage group HSS score group(F=29.51,P<0.0001);the time changetrend was not statistically significant(F=0.15,P=0.8628);The magnitude ofchange in the measured values at the last 3 time points was statistically significant(F=9.04,P=0.0002);the different time points between the groups were on day 7(t=3.06,P=0.0024)and day 14(t=4.09,P< 0.0001)the difference was statisticallysignificant.2.VAS pain visual analogue scale comparison: There was significant differencebetween the control group and the massage group(F=17.07,P<0.0001);the timechange trend was statistically significant(F=7.79,P=0.0005);There was astatistically significant difference in the amplitude of changes at three time pointsafter surgery(F=5.40,P=0.0050).There was no significant difference in thedifference between the groups on the 7th day(t=-1.36,P=0.1739).On day 14(t=-3.27,P=0.0012)the difference was statistically significant.3.D-dimer comparison: There was no significant difference between the controlgroup and the D-dimer group(F=1.79,P=0.1818).There was no significantdifference in the time trend(F=0.34,P=0.7116);There was no significantdifference in the amplitude of changes between the two groups at the 3postoperative time(F=0.46,P=0.6308);the comparison between the groups atdifferent time points was on the 7th day(t=-0.44,P=There was no statisticallysignificant difference on day 14(t=-0.96,P=0.3380).Analysis of secondary efficacy results 4.Comparison of functional scores: There was a statistically significant differencebetween the control group and the massage group(F=42.67,P<0.0001);the timechange trend was statistically significant(F=4.02,P=0.0192);There was astatistically significant change in the measured values at three time points aftersurgery(F=18.58,P<0.0001).The comparison between the groups at different timepoints was on the 7th day(t=3.57,P=0.0004),day 14(The difference wasstatistically significant at t=6.06,P<0.0001).5.Comparison of stability scores: There was no significant difference in the stabilitybetween the control group and the massage group(F=3.71,P=0.0551);there wasno significant difference in the time trend(F=0.38,P=0.6857);There was nosignificant difference in the change of the measured values at the 3 time pointsafter operation(F=0.90,P=0.4062).The comparison between the groups atdifferent time points was on the 7th day(t=-1.424,P=0.3643),There was nostatistically significant difference in 14 days(t=-1.703,P=0.1905).6.Comparison of activity scores: There was a statistically significant differencebetween the control group and the massage group(F=47.47,P<0.0001);the timechange trend was statistically significant(F=18.25,P<0.0001);The amplitude ofchanges in the group at 3 time points after surgery was statistically significant(F=13.31,P<0.0001);the comparison between groups at different time points wason the 7th day(t=3.08,P=0.0387),14 th The difference between days(t=5.95,P<0.0001)was statistically significant.7.Comparison of muscle strength scores: There was a statistically significantdifference between the control group and the massage group(F=6.83,P=0.0089);the time change trend was statistically significant(F=22.20,P<0.0001);Theamplitude of changes in the group at three time points after surgery wasstatistically significant(F=22.43,P<0.0001);the time points between groups werecompared on day 7(P=0.0002),day 14(P< 0.0001)The difference was statisticallysignificant.Conclusion 1.After the one-finger massage,the HSS total score,pain visual analogue score(VASscore),HSS score function,activity,and muscle strength were significantlyimproved after TKA.2.One-finger Zen massage can improve the knee function,range of motion,pain andmuscle strength after TKA,which can speed up the recovery of patients’ functionafter total knee arthroplasty,shorten hospitalization time,improve patientsatisfaction and improve The patient’s quality of life promotes the patient’s rapidrecovery after TKA.3.One-way Zen massage has no obvious effect on the stability of D-dimer and kneejoint after TKA. |
