臭氧与玻璃酸钠治疗膝骨性关节炎疗效的比较

目的比较臭氧、玻璃酸钠以及二者联合治疗膝关节骨性关节炎的临床疗效。方法膝关节骨性关节炎143例按随机数字表分为A组（48例）、B组（48例）和C组（47例），分别以玻璃酸钠20mg、30μg/ml浓度的医用臭氧30ml和同剂量臭氧＋同剂量玻璃酸钠作患膝关节腔注射，每周1次，5次为一疗程。比较治疗前与治疗后3d、30d、60d、90d膝关节VAS疼痛评分和膝关节功能Lysaholm评分。治疗后90d，比较膝关节Leguesne评分有效率。结果VAS评分：A组治疗后30、60、90d较术前明显改善，B、C组治疗后3、30、60、90d均较术前明显改善；B组治疗后3、30d改善程度较A组大，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05），但治疗后60、90d2组差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）；C组治疗后3、30、60、90d均较A、B组改善明显，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。膝关节功能Lysholm评分：A、C组治疗后30、60、90d均较治疗前明显提高，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）；而B组治疗后30、60d均较治疗前明显提高，但治疗后90d时与治疗前比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）；A组治疗后90d明显高于B组，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）；C组治疗后30、60、90d均明显高于A、B组，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。A、B组Leguesne疗效评分有效率差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05），C组Leguesne疗效评分有效率明显较A、B组高。差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论应用臭氧治疗膝关节骨性关节炎能减轻关节疼痛，改善膝关节功能；而单用玻璃酸钠则疗效起效慢，但较单用臭氧稳定；二者联用不仅起效快、效果好，而且疗效稳定。

Curative effect of ozone and sodium hyaluronate for knee osteoarthritis

Objective To compare the clinical curative effect of different drugs for knee osteoarthritis. Methods All of 143 patients with knee osteoarthritis in recently three years were divided into three groups in accordance with the random number table. Sodium hyaluronate（group A with 48 cases）, ozone（group B with 48 cases）, and the combination of A and B（group C with 47 cases） was respectively injected into knee joint cavity. All the treatments were done weekly and one period of treatment had 5 times. The VAS pain scale and the Lysholm scale of knee joint function were compared before treatment and at 3 d, 30 d, 60 d and 90 d after treatment. The effective rate of Leguesne of knee joint was compared at 90 d after treatment. Results The VAS scores of group A at 30, 60, 90 d after treatment were obviously improved compared with preoperative, and which of group B and C at 3, 30, 60, 90 d after treatment were obviously improved compared with preoperative. The degree of improvement of group B was more obvious than that of group A at 3, 30 d after treatment, which showed significant difference （P 〈0.05）, while there was no significant difference between the two groups at 60, 90 d after treatment（P 〉0.05）. The degree of improvement of group C was more obvious than that of group A and B at 3, 30, 60, 90 d after treatment, which showed significant difference （P 〈0.05）. Lysholm score of group A and C at 30, 60, 90 d after treatment were obviously increased compared with preoperative, there was significant difference （P 〈0.05）, which of group B at 30, 60 d after treatment were obviously increased compared with preoperative, while at 90 d after treatment there showed no significant difference compared with preoperative （P 〉0.05）. The Lysholm score of group A at 90 d after treatment was obviously higher than that of group B, there was significant difference （P 〈0.05）. Lysholm score of group C at 30, 60, 90 d after treatment was obviously higher than that of group A and B, there was sig