Objective To compare the efficacies of several commonly-used penetrating needling methods in treating post-stroke strephenopodia. Method Eighty-three patients with post-stroke strephenopodia were randomized into four groups, a control group intervened by conventional needling method (n=20), and the rest three groups were additionally intervened by different penetrating needling methods: penetrating group 1 [Qiuxu (GB40) towards Zhaohai (KI6), n=21], penetrating group 2 [Taibai (SP3) towards Shugu (BL65), n=21], and penetrating group 3 [Jiaoxin (KI8) towards Fuyang (BL59), n=21], to compare their effects on the function of ankle and lower extremity. Result The penetrating needling methods and conventional needling method all can significantly improve the function of ankle in patients with post-stroke strephenopodia (P<0.01). The effectiveness of penetrating group 1 was more significant than that of the rest groups (P<0.01), the effectiveness of penetrating group 2 was more significant than that of penetrating group 3 and the control group (P<0.05,P<0.01), and there was no significant difference in comparing the effectiveness between penetrating group 3 and the control group (P > 0.05). The penetrating needling methods and conventional needling method all can significantly improve the motor function of lower extremity in patients with post-stroke strephenopodia (P<0.01). The effectiveness of penetrating group 1 was more significant than that of the other groups (P<0.01), the efficacies of penetrating group 2 and 3 were more significant than that of the control (P<0.01), and there was no significant difference in comparing the effectiveness between penetrating group 2 and 3 (P>0.05). Conclusion Needling from Qiuxu towards Zhaohai and from Taibai towards Shugu can produce significant effects in improving ankle function and the motor function of lower extremity in patients with post-stroke strephenopodia, while needling from Jiaoxin to Fuyang doesn’t have notable advantage compared to the other penetrating needling methods and conventional needling method.%目的：比较临床上常用的几种透刺疗法治疗中风后足内翻的疗效。方法将83例中风后足内翻患者随机分为4组,1组为常规针刺对照组(n=20),其余3组在此基础上施以不同透刺方法,分别为透刺1组(丘墟透照海,n=21)、透刺2组(太白透束骨,n=21)和透刺3组(交信透附阳,n=21),比较其对患者踝关节功能和下肢运动功能的影响。结果透刺法和常规针刺均能改善中风后足内翻患者的踝关节功能,与治疗前比较差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01)。透刺1组疗效优于其他各组(P＜0.01),透刺2组疗效优于透刺3组和对照组(P＜0.05,P＜0.01),而透刺3组与对照组比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05)。透刺法和常规针刺均能改善中风后足内翻患者的下肢运动功能,与治疗前比较差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01)。透刺1组疗效优于其他各组(P＜0.01),透刺2组、透刺3组疗效优于对照组(P＜0.01),而透刺2组、透刺3组之间无显著性差异(P＞0.05)。结论丘墟透照海、太白透束骨对中风后足内翻患者的踝关节功能和下肢运动功能的恢复疗效显著,而交信透跗阳相较于其他透刺方法和常规针刺,则并不具有疗效上的优势。
展开▼
