体外冲击波与关节松动术治疗肩关节周围炎的临床疗效对比

目的 比较体外冲击波与关节松动术在治疗肩关节周同炎方面的疗效差异，从而为体外冲击波在临床中更广泛的应用提供依据。方法 共选取82例肩关节周围炎患者，将其随机分为治疗组（采用体外冲击波治疗，n=42）与对照组（采用关节松动术治疗，n=40）。体外冲击波频率为60次／min，强度为0．18～0.25ml／mm^2，每次治疗时共冲击1000次，每5天治疗1次，共治疗3次。关节松动术治疗每天1次，每次持续30～40min，共治疗15次。采用视觉模拟评分法（VAS）评定患者治疗前、后的痛觉变化；选用Constant-Murley肩功能评分法（C-M评分）评定患者治疗前、后ADL及ROM的改变情况。结果 2组患者经相应治疗后其疼痛及C-M评分均较治疗前明显改善。差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01），治疗后2组患者上述评分进行比较，差异亦有统计学意义（P〈0．05），且治疗组患者疗效明显优于对照组，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论 体外冲击波治疗肩关节周围炎的疗效明显优于关节松动术，值得临床进一步推广、应用。

A controlled clinical study of the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave therapy and joint mobilization technique in the treatment of periarthritis of shoulder

Objective To observe and compare the effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy(ESWT) and that of joint mobilization technique on periarthritis of shoulder. Methods Eighty-two patients were divided into two groups randomly, a treatment group (n=42) treated with extracorporeal shock wave therapy, and a control group (n=40) treated with joint mobilization technique. All the patients were evaluated with Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Constant-Murley Scale(C-M scale) before and half a month after the treatment. Results After treatment the results obtained with the use of VAS Scale and C-M Scale (only ADL and ROM) were significantly different in two groups when compared with those before the treatment (P<0.01),the treatment group was significantly diffe-rent from the control group after treatment (P<0.05),the clinical effects of the treatment group was superior to that of the control group (P<0.05). Conclusion Extracorporeal shock wave therapy is more effective for periarthritis of shoulder than joint mobilization technique.