口服抗骨质增生合剂治疗膝骨关节炎的临床研究

目的：观察口服抗骨质增生舍剂治疗膝骨关节炎的临床疗效及安全性。方法：将108例膝骨关节炎患者随机分为治疗组55例和对照组53例。治疗组采用口服抗骨质增生合剂治疗，对照组采用口服抗骨增生胶囊治疗。分别于治疗前、治疗4周后、治疗结束后3个月，采用视觉模拟评分量表评价2组患者的患膝疼痛、僵硬、肿胀情况及日常活动能力。并于治疗4周后，评价2组患者的总体疗效及安全性。结果：①患膝疼痛视觉模拟评分。不同时间点间患膝疼痛视觉模拟评分的差异有统计学意义（F=103．401，P=0．000）。2组患者患膝疼痛视觉模拟评分的组间差异总体上有统计学意义（F=21．067，P=0．000）。治疗前2组患膝疼痛视觉模拟评分比较，差异无统计学意义[（4．43±0．77）分，（4．33±0．44）分，t=0．033，P=0．856]；治疗4周后及治疗结束后3个月，2组患膝疼痛视觉模拟评分比较，差异均有统计学意义[（1．24±4．50）分，（1．88±3．60）分，t=3．818，P=0．045；（1．37±1．09）分，（2．03±0．93）分，t=3．961，P=0．045）]。时间因素与分组因素存在交互效应（F=9．595，P=0．003）。②患膝僵硬视觉模拟评分。不同时间点间患膝僵硬视觉模拟评分的差异有统计学意义（F=127．565，P=0．000）。2组患者患膝僵硬视觉模拟评分的组间差异总体上无统计学意义（F=2．643，P=0．109）。治疗前、治疗4周后及治疗结束后3个月，2组患膝僵硬视觉模拟评分比较，组间差异均无统计学意义[（4．58±0．86）分，（4．89±0．90）分，t=1．198，P=0．278；（1．62±1．55）分，（1．64±1．48）分，t=3．465，P=0．067；（2．00±1．26）分，（2．27±1．32）分，t=3．480，P=0．066）。时间因素与分组因素不存在交互效应（F=0．108，P=0．668）。③患膝肿胀视觉模拟评分。不同时间点间患膝肿胀视觉模?

A clinical study on oral application of anti-hyperosteogeny mixture in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis

Objective：To observe the clinical curative effect and safety of oral application of anti-hyperosteogeny mixture in the treat-ment of knee osteoarthritis（KOA）.Methods：One hundred and eight patients with KOA were randomly divided into treatment group（55 ca-ses）and control group（53 cases）.Patients in the treatment group were treated with oral anti-hyperosteogeny mixtures,while the others in the control group were treated with oral anti-hyperosteogeny capsules.The knee pain,stiffness,swelling and daily activity were evaluated by using the visual analogue scale （VAS ）and compared between the 2 groups before treatment,after 4-week treatment and 3 months after the end of the treatment respectively,and the total curative effect and safety were also evaluated and compared between the 2 groups after 4-week treatment.Results：There was statistical difference in the knee pain VAS scores between different time points （F=103.401,P=0.000）.In general,there was statistical difference in the knee pain VAS scores between the 2 groups（F=21.067,P=0.000）.There was no statistical difference in the knee pain VAS scores between the 2 groups before treatment（4.43＋/-0.77 vs 4.33＋/-0.44 points,t =0.033,P=0.856）.There was statistical difference in the knee pain VAS scores between the 2 groups after 4-week treatment and 3 months after the end of the treatment（1.24＋/-4.50 vs 1.88 ＋/-3.60 points,t=3.818,P=0.045;1.37 ＋/-1.09 vs 2.03＋/-0.93 points,t=3.961,P=0.045）.There was interaction between time factor and grouping factor（F=9.595,P=0.003）.There was statistical difference in the knee stiffness VAS scores between different time points（F=127.565,P=0.000）.In general,there was no statistical difference in the knee stiffness VAS scores between the 2 groups（F=2.643,P=0.109）.There was no statistical difference in the knee stiffness VAS scores between the 2 groups before treatment,after 4-week treatment and 3 months after the end of the treatment （4.58＋/-0.86 vs 4.89＋/-0.90 points,t=1.1