Objective To observe the clinical efficacy of extracorporeal shock wave (ESW) plus electroacupuncture in treating periarthritis of shoulder.Method Ninety patients with periarthritis of shoulder were randomized into an electroacupuncture (EA) group, an ESW group, and an ESW plus EA group, 30 cases in each group. The EA group was intervened by EA, the ESW group was treated with ESW, and the ESW plus EA group by ESW and EA. The three groups were treated once every 2 d, with successive 10 sessions as a treatment course. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score and shoulder range of motion (ROM) score were evaluated before and after the treatment in the three groups. Result The VAS scores dropped significantly in the three groups after the intervention (P<0.05); there was no significant difference in comparing the VAS score between the EA group and ESW group after the intervention (P>0.05); the VAS score in the ESW plus EA group was significantly different from that in the EA group and ESW group after the treatment (P<0.05). The ROM scores were significantly improved in the three groups after the intervention (P<0.05); there was no significant difference in comparing the ROM score between the EA group and the ESW group after the intervention (P>0.05); the ROM score in the ESW plus EA group was significant different from that in the other two groups (P<0.05).Conclusion ESW plus EA can more significantly ease the pain and improve the shoulder ROM in treating periarthritis of shoulder compared with the two methods used separately.%目的 观察电针联合体外冲击波治疗肩关节周围炎的临床疗效.方法 将90例肩关节周围炎患者随机分为电针组、冲击波组、电针联合体外冲击波组,每组30例.电针组采用电针治疗,冲击波组采用体外冲击波治疗仪治疗,电针联合体外冲击波组采用体外冲击波治疗仪联合电针治疗.3组均为隔2 d治疗1次,连续治疗1O次为1个疗程.观察3组治疗前后VA评分、肩关节活动度评分的变化.结果 3组治疗后VAS疼痛评分较同组治疗前均显著降低(P<0.05);电针组与冲击波组治疗后VAS评分比较差异无显著性意义(P>0.05),电针联合体外冲击波组治疗后VAS评分与电针组及冲击波组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).3组治疗后ROM评分较同组治疗前均有明显改善(P<0.05);电针组与冲击波组治疗后ROM评分比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);电针联合体外冲击波组的ROM评分与电针组及冲击波组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论 与单纯体外冲击波或电针比较,电针联合体外冲击波对肩关节周围炎的疼痛缓解更加明显,且能更好地改善肩关节活动度.
展开▼
