文献类型：期刊文献

中文题名：热补针法治疗风寒湿阻型类风湿性关节炎的临床疗效

英文题名：Clinical Efficacy on Heat Reinforcing Needling Method for Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis of Wind- Cold- Damp Retention Type

作者：张星华[1];朱博雯[1];杨晨光[1];赵彬元[1];秦晓光[1];杜小正[1]

第一作者：张星华

机构：[1]甘肃中医学院,甘肃兰州730000

第一机构：甘肃中医药大学

年份：2015

卷号：42

期号：5

起止页码：1076

中文期刊名：辽宁中医杂志

外文期刊名：Liaoning Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine

收录：CSTPCD;;北大核心:【北大核心2014】；

基金：国家自然基金项目(81260558);甘肃省自然基金项目(1208RJZA185);甘肃省属高校基本科研业务费专项资金(2012-4)

语种：中文

中文关键词：热补针法;平补平泻法;类风湿性关节炎;VAS;ESR;CRP

外文关键词：heat reinforcing needling method; rheumatoid arthritis; reinforcing -reducing method; visual analog scale（VAS） ; erythrocyte sedimentation rate （ESR） ; C reaction protein （CRP）

摘要：目的:观察热补针法与平补平泻法治疗风寒湿阻型类风湿性关节炎的临床疗效差异。方法:将60例风寒湿阻型类风湿性关节炎患者随机分为观察组(30例)和对照组(30例)。观察组取关元、足三里(双)、三阴交(双)、血海(双)和关节局部腧穴,针刺用热补针法;对照组取穴与观察组相同,针刺用平补平泻法。两组均1次/d,连续5次为1个疗程,治疗4个疗程。两组均于治疗前、治疗后运用视觉模拟量表(VAS)进行评分,观察ESR、CRP改善情况并统计疗效。结果:两组患者治疗后VAS评分均较治疗前明显降低(均P<0.05),且治疗后观察组VAS评分比对照组降低更加明显(P<0.05)。两组患者治疗后ESR和CRP改善均无统计学差异(均P>0.05)。观察组总有效率为93.3%,对照组为76.7%,观察组临床疗效优于对照组(P<0.05)。结论:热补针法治疗风寒湿阻型类风湿性关节炎临床疗效明显优于平补平泻法,值得临床推广和使用。
Objective ： To compare differences of therapeutic effect of rheumatoid arthritis of wind - cold - damp retention type treated with heat reinforcing needling method and reinforcing - reducing method. Methods ： Sixty cases of such disease were ran- domly divided into observation group （30 cases） and control group （30 cases）. The observation group was given acupoints with Guanyuan（RN4） ,Zusanli （ double ST36） ,Sanyinjiao（ double SP6） ,Xuehai（ double SPIO） and joint local acupoints using heat reinforcing needling method;and the control group used the same aeupoints and punctured with reinforcing reducing method. The treatments were applied 5 consecutive times a week and 4 weeks made one course. Visual Analog Scale （VAS） score, Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate（ESR） and C Reaction Protein （CRP） improvement were conducted before treatment and after four treatment coureses, and the therapeutic effects were evaluated. Results：After treatment,the VAS score was obviously reduced in both groups （ all P 〈 0.05 ）, and the VAS score in observation group reduced more obviously than this in control group （ P 〈 0.05 ）. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in ESR and CRP （ both P 〉 0.05 ）. The total effective rate was 93.3 % in observation group which was superior to that of 76.7% in control group （P 〈 0.05 ）. Conclusion：The therapeutic effect of rheuma- toid arthritis treated with heat reinforcing needling method is worthy of promotion and application, which is significantly better than reinforcing - reducing method.