文献类型：期刊文献

中文题名：可调式中药熥敷保健颈托治疗神经根型颈椎病的临床观察

英文题名：Clinical Observation of Adjustable Neck Brace with Hot Herbal Compress on Cervical Spondylopathy of Nerve Root Type

作者：赵继荣[1];杨峰[2];陈文[2];贾茂林[2];王斌[2];张海清[2];王慧[2]

第一作者：赵继荣

机构：[1]甘肃省中医院,兰州730050;[2]甘肃中医学院

第一机构：甘肃省中医院,兰州730050

年份：2014

卷号：22

期号：8

起止页码：15

中文期刊名：中国中医骨伤科杂志

外文期刊名：Chinese Journal of Traditional Medical Traumatology & Orthopedics

收录：CSTPCD

基金：甘肃省中医药科研立项课题课题编号:GZK-2012-28

语种：中文

中文关键词：颈椎病;颈托;牵引;中草药

外文关键词：Cervical spondylopathy; Neck brace; Traction; Chinese herb

摘要：目的:在中药熥敷保健颈托的基础之上设计和研制出中药热敷、颈椎制动、牵引和调节颈椎的生理曲度为一体的可调节式中药熥敷保健颈托,并观察可调式中药熥敷保健颈托治疗神经根型颈椎病的临床疗效。方法:共收集门诊神经根型颈椎病患者92例。按就诊日期单双号随机分成3组,可调式中药熥敷保健颈托病例组(A组)32例,中药熥敷保健颈托病例对照组(B组)30例、牵引治疗+中药熏洗对照组(C组)30例。在治疗前后分别对患者的一般状况,颈椎弧弦距、颈椎活动度、颈部压痛、颈部疼痛等指标的评分、恢复情况的症状、临床症状体征、睡眠工作影响积分和总积分的改善指数和总的有效率进行观察,2个疗程后观察疗效和测量颈椎的曲值。结果:3组患者治疗后A组痊愈78.1%、显效12.5%、好转6.3%、无效3.1%、总有效率96.9%;B组痊愈76.7%、显效6.7%、好转10%、无效6.7%、总有效率93.3%;C组痊愈53.3%、显效3.3%、好转33.3%、无效10%、总有效率90%。3组间治愈率和有效率比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05),A组疗效明显优于B组和C组。结论:可调式中药熥敷保健颈托治疗神经根型颈椎病优于中药熥敷保健颈托治疗和牵引+中药热敷的疗效。
Objective：Adjustable was designed and made with functions of herbal fomentation, cervical spine immobilization, traction and regulation of cervical curvature. The present study is to observe the effect of ANBHH on cervical spondylopathy of nerve root Type （CSNTR）. Methods： Totally 92 cases with CSNTR were enrolled into the study from outpatient. According to the date of visit, the patients were randomized into three groups, 32 cases in ANBHH group, 30 cases in neck brace with hot herbal compress （NBHH） group and 30 cases in cervica spine traction plus fomentation （CSTF） group. The performance status, cervical arc chord distance, range of cervical spine motion, cervical tenderness and cervical pain, symptoms and signs, sleep record and totally effect rate were observed before and after treatment. The effect and cervical arc chord distance were investigated after two courses of treatment. Results：The cure rate, obvious effective rate, improve- ment rate, ineffective rate and totally effective rate of group A were 78.1%, 12.5%, 6.3%, 3.1% and 96.9%, while that of group B were 76.7%, 6.7%, 10%, 6.7% and 93.3% and that of Group C were 53.3%, 3.3%, 33.3%, 10% and 90%. The treatment of group A was significantly more effective than that of group B and C. Conclusion：ANBHH is an effective therapy for CSNTR patients. ANBHH is more effective than NBHH and CSTF.