针灸疗法对60例不同分期周围性面瘫患者疗效比较

目的：探讨周围性面瘫不同分期采用不同治疗方法的疗效差异。方法：将60例周围性面瘫患者按就诊先后顺序分为治疗组和对照组各30例。治疗组在急性期采用药物＋针灸（浅刺、轻刺激）＋微波治疗,恢复期采用电针（重刺激、透刺）＋穴位注射＋电疗＋按摩治疗;对照组在急性期采用单纯药物治疗,恢复期治疗方法同治疗组。3个疗程后观察两组疗效。结果：治疗组总有效率为100.0%（30/30）,1个疗程治愈率为48.2%（13/27）,2个疗程治愈率为44.4%（12/27）,3个疗程治愈率为7.4%（2/27）。对照组总有效率为90.0%（27/30）,1个疗程治愈率为5.5%（1/18）,2个疗程治愈率为27.8%（5/18）,3个疗程治愈率为66.7%（12/18）。治疗组在疗效及治愈疗程上显著优于对照组（P〈0.05）。结论：对周围性面瘫不同分期采用不同治疗方法疗效显著。

Comparison on the therapeutic effect of acupuncture on 60 cases of peripheral facial paralysis at different stages

Objective To investigate the difference in the therapeutic effect of different methods in the treatment of peripheral facial paralysis （PFP） at different stages. Methods Sixty cases of PFP at different stages were divided into a treatment group and a control group according to the sequence for visit, and 30 patients were included in each group. The patients in the treatment group were treated by using drugs, acupuncture （shallow puncture and subexcite） and microwave therapy during the acute stage, and they were subjected to electroacupuncture （EA） （heavy stimulation and penetration needling）, acupoint injection, electrotherapy and massage during the convalescence stage. In contrast, the patients in the control group were treated simply with drugs, and the therapeutic methods during the convalescence stage were the same to those for the treatment group, and the therapeutic effect of the two groups was observed after three treatment courses. Results The total effective rate in the treatment group was 100.0% （30/30）, the cured rate after one treatment course was 48.2% （13/27）, the cured rate after two treatment courses was 44.4% （12/27）, and the cured rate after three treatment courses was 7.4% （2/27）. The total effective rate in the control group was 90.0% （27/30）, the cured rate after one treatment course was 5.5% （1/18）, the cured rate after two treatment courses was 27.8% （5/18）, and the cured rate after three treatment courses was 66.7% （12/18）. The therapeutic effect and the treatment courses for healing of the treatment group were significantly better than those in the control group （P0.05）. Conclusion the therapeutic effect of different therapeutic methods on PFP is remarkable.