正骨十四法联合中药外敷在桡骨远端骨折中的应用效果分析

【摘要】 目的 研究探讨正骨十四法联合舒筋定痛散外敷治疗桡骨远端骨折的临床疗效。方法 选取 2019年1月至2021年1月郑州市骨科医院收治的100例桡骨远端骨折患者作为研究对象,按照随机数表法将其随机分为观察组 (50例)与对照组(50例)? 观察组患者采用正骨十四法联合舒筋定痛散外敷治疗,对照组患者单纯采用正骨十四法治疗,对比观察两组患者功能训练开始时间、肿胀消退时间、骨折愈合时间、腕关节活动度以及腕关节功能? 结果 观察组患者功能训练开始时间、肿胀消退时间、骨折愈合时间均明显短于对照组 (t =6.809、4.761、4.859,P 均 <0.001); 治疗后 3 个月,观察组患者腕关节旋前、旋后、掌屈活动度均明显大于对照组 (t =20.384、22.656、20.190,P 均 <0.001); 治疗后6个月,观察组患者腕关节功能为优者7例、良者23例、可者17 例、差者3 例,与对照组患者腕关节功能为优者4例、良者19例、可者18例、差者9例无明显差异(Z = -1.800,P =0.072)。结论 正骨十四法联合舒筋定痛散外敷治疗桡骨远端骨折,可有效促进肿胀消退,缩短骨折愈合时间,改善腕关节活动度,值得临床推广应用。     

脊柱推拿生物力学研究的几个关键问题

推拿学历史悠久,源远流长,在中国传统医学中占有重要的地位。由于推拿手法治法简便,疗效独特,脊柱推拿手法对伤科疾患与疼痛病症有很好的疗效。虽然脊柱推拿临床应用广泛,但基础研究薄弱。本文从脊柱推拿手法作用的"力"本质及其与手法"形"关系、脊柱推拿所致咔哒声响、脊柱推拿时髓核内压力的实时监测、推拿对椎管内结构影响以及推拿时脊椎结构在空间位置上变化等方面的研究进行论述,这为更加科学地阐述脊柱推拿的作用机制提供坚实的实验依据和理论基础。     

中医斜扳疗法治疗腰椎间盘突出的生物力学研究

目的对椎间盘突出等腰椎病中医推拿斜扳疗法进行生物力学建模分析研究,比对脉冲激励的传统斜扳法和简谐激励的改良斜扳法两种不同手法的力学特性。方法假设椎骨为刚体,椎间盘及周围韧带等软组织为黏弹性体,建立模拟L1～5的5自由度振动系统,对基本方程进行解析求解。结果简谐激励改良斜扳法的疗效与频率有关。在频率≤1的简谐激励改良斜扳法作用下,病变节段最大位移都大于脉冲激励传统斜扳法下的最大位移。随着病变位置下移,简谐激励改良斜扳法的损伤比相比脉冲激励传统斜扳法逐渐下降,安全性增高。结论使用频率≤1的简谐激励改良斜扳法,治疗效果优于脉冲激励传统斜扳法,且可控制损伤。     

Clinical protocol for managing acute disc displacement without reduction: a magnetic resonance imaging evaluation

This study investigated the efficacy of a sequential combination of arthrocentesis, mandibular manipulation, and anterior repositioning splint (ARS) in the management of acute temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disc displacement without reduction (DDwoR). Twenty-one consecutive patients diagnosed with acute DDwoR by Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were recruited and managed with this method. Clinical and MRI data were obtained before and at 1 week after treatment. The disc–condyle relationship was determined by disc–condyle angle measurement. Condyle/disc positions were described as x–y coordinates with the summit of the articular fossa as the coordinate origin. Statistical analyses including independent/paired samples t-tests were conducted; significance was set at P < 0.05. Clinical success was observed in 95.2% of patients (20/21) with 22 joints affected by acute DDwoR. After combined treatment and ARS insertion, TMJs with DDwoR showed (a) normal disc–condyle relationships with substantial forward and downward condyle movement and significant disc reduction in closed position, and (b) discs with an intermediate zone located between the condylar head and articular eminence in open position. The combined approach was highly effective in ‘unlocking’ acute TMJ DDwoR and achieving spatial full disc reduction and a normal disc–condyle relationship. The duration of acute DDwoR appears to be critical for success.     

近15年中医外治法治疗颈心综合征研究概况

对近15年中医外治法治疗颈心综合征的有关文章查阅分析,发现包含针刺、带刃针具、灸法、推拿按摩等方法的中医外治法对该病有较好的临床疗效,可以显著改善患者的临床症状。通过分析研究近年文献发现,中医外治法治疗本病有确切的疗效,但是更多的中医外治研究是关于推拿手法治疗本病的研究,目前对于颈心综合征的诊断治疗标准不统一、其结果的可靠性不高,且颈心综合征尚无统一的中医外治法疗效评定标准,不能客观全面的评价中医外治法治疗颈心综合征的作用,而经济安全、方法简单、操作方便、疗效确切的中医外治法应是未来治疗颈心综合征的重要发展方向。因此在总结评述的同时,提出近年来中医外治法治疗颈心综合征研究的不足以及今后研究的重点及方向,今后关于颈心综合征的中医外治法研究尚需要严谨的科研设计、大样本、多中心、随机双盲对照实验来验证可靠性。     

Chiropractic management of postpartum pubic symphysis diastasis: A case report

This case report describes the chiropractic management of a 30-year-old female patient with severe postpartum pelvic pain secondary to pubic symphysis diastasis. No literature was found on the chiropractic management of postpartum symphysis pubis diastasis. The existing literature concerning chiropractic care for symphysis pubis dysfunction during pregnancy is limited and indicates a potential benefit. Separation of the pubic symphysis may include ligamentous injury to the sacroiliac joints and may lead to chronic pain. Pubic symphysis separation of 17 millimeters was present on digital radiograph. Management consisted of chiropractic adjustments, trigger point release, electrical stimulation, moist heat, sacroiliac belt, and specific stabilizing exercises. The patient’s pain improved immediately following treatment on the initial visit. Pain was reduced from 8/10 VAS at the first visit to 2/10 at the fourth visit. She was able to resume normal activities and reached a final pain level of 1/10. The diastasis was reduced by 7 millimeters at 14-weeks post radiograph for a final separation of just under 10 millimeters. Collaboration between obstetricians, midwives and chiropractors may be warranted.     

正骨手法治疗单纯收缩期高血压伴颈椎病的病例对照研究

目的:探索正骨手法治疗单纯性收缩期高血压伴随颈椎病的疗效及安全性。方法:自2012年1 月至2015 年1 月,收治单纯收缩期高血压伴颈椎病患者320 例,分为治疗组和对照组。治疗组160例,男84例,女76例,平均年龄(39.82±10.33)岁,平均血压(149.61±10.75)/(81.01±8.25) mmHg,NPQ评分24.61±8.14;对照组160例,男90例,女70例,平均年龄(41.37±9.42)岁,平均血压(151.48±11.32)/(79.65±9.32) mmHg,NPQ评分25.78±9.53.治疗组予颈椎屈顶旋锁定正骨手法治疗,每2日1次,连续20 d;对照组予坐位颈椎旋转复位法治疗,每2日1次,连续20 d.于治疗前后测量血压及填写NPQ量表以评估疗效。结果:治疗前及1个疗程结束后收缩压,治疗组分别为(149.61±10.75) mmHg和(129.67±12.26) mmHg,对照组分别为(151.48±11.32) mmHg和(132.02±11.73) mmHg,两组治疗后收缩压均较治疗前下降,治疗后治疗组收缩压改善优于对照组。治疗前后舒张压,治疗组分别为(81.01±8.25) mmHg和(78.15±10.34) mmHg,对照组分别为(79.65±9.32) mmHg和(76.89±9.79) mmHg,两组舒张压变化差异无统计学意义。治疗前后NPQ 评分,治疗组分别为24.61±8.14和12.46±7.94,对照组分别为25.78±9.53和14.17±8.86,两组治疗后评分均优于治疗前,治疗后两组评分差异无统计学意义。总体疗效比较,治疗组优于对照组。结论:单纯收缩期高血压伴颈椎病患者早期行正骨手法治疗效果显着,颈椎屈顶旋锁定正骨手法效果较传统坐位颈椎旋转复位法疗效更佳,更为安全。     

Efficacy of stabilisation splint therapy combined with non‐splint multimodal therapy for treating RDC/TMD axis I patients: a randomised controlled trial

Stabilisation splint therapy has long been thought to be effective for the management of temporomandibular disorders (TMD). However, the superiority of stabilisation splint therapy compared to other TMD treatments remains controversial. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of stabilisation splint therapy combined with non‐splint multimodal therapy for TMD. A total of 181 TMD participants were randomly allocated to a non‐splint multimodal therapy (NS) group (n = 85) or a non‐splint multimodal therapy plus stabilisation splint (NS+S) group (n = 96). Non‐splint multimodal therapy included self‐exercise of the jaw, cognitive–behavioural therapy, self‐management education and additional jaw manipulation. Three outcome measurements were used to assess treatment efficacy: mouth‐opening limitation, oro‐facial pain and temporomandibular joint sounds. A two‐factor repeated‐measures analysis of variance (anova ) was used to evaluate the efficacy of the two treatment modalities (NS vs. NS+S), and Scheffe's multiple comparison test was used to compare the treatment periods. Subgroup analyses were performed to disclose the splint effects for each TMD diagnostic group. All three parameters significantly decreased over time in both groups. However, there were no significant differences between the two treatment groups in the total comparison or subgroup analyses; an exception was the group with degenerative joint disease. No significant difference between the NS and NS+S treatment approaches was revealed in this study. Therefore, we conclude that the additional effects of stabilisation splint are not supported for patients with TMD during the application of multimodal therapy.