不同隔物灸治疗溃疡性结肠炎临床观察（英文）

目的:观察隔药饼灸和隔姜灸治疗溃疡性结肠炎(ulcerative colitis,UC)的临床疗效和症状评分改善情况。方法:将65例慢性U C患者随机分为隔药饼灸组(n=32)和隔姜灸组(n=33)。两组取相同穴位,即双侧天枢和大肠俞,分别采用隔药饼灸和隔姜灸治疗,每天治疗1次,12次为1疗程,疗程间休息3d,共治疗6个疗程。观察并比较两组临床疗效、症状评分以及M ayo评分改善状况。结果:治疗过程中,隔药饼灸组脱落2例,隔姜灸组脱落3例,最终每组30例纳入统计。治疗后,隔药饼灸组总有效率为93.3%,隔姜灸组总有效率为86.7%,两组间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。隔药饼灸组腹痛时间和腹泻频度改善情况均优于隔姜灸组(P=0.032,P=0.044)。治疗后,总体症状评分,主要症状评分,生活质量改善,腹痛频度、程度评分以及腹泻次数、性状评分比较,组间差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。隔药饼灸组患者M ayo评分改善情况优于隔姜灸组(P=0.048)。结论:隔药饼灸和隔姜灸均是治疗慢性U C的有效方法,两者总体疗效相当;隔药饼灸在改善腹痛时间评分、腹泻频度评分和M ayo评分方面优于隔姜灸组。

Observation on the effects of different partitioned moxibustion in treating ulcerative colitis

Objective

To observe the clinical effect and syndrome scores improvements of herbal cake-partitioned moxibustion (HPM) and ginger-partitioned moxibustion (GPM) in treating ulcerative colitis (UC).

Methods

A total of 65 eligible cases were randomly divided into a HPM group (n=32) and a GPM group (n=33) according to their visiting order. Bilateral Tianshu (ST 25) and Dachangshu (BL 25) were selected for the HPM or the GPM treatment once daily, 12 d as a treatment course with a 3-day interval, 6 courses in all. The clinical effect, syndrome scale and Mayo scale were evaluated and compared between the two groups.

Results

Of the 65 cases enrolled, 2 cases dropped out in the HPM group and 3 cases dropped out in the GPM group, 30 cases of each group finished the treatment courses. The total effective rate is 93.3% in HPM group and 86.7% in the GPM group, there was no statistically significant difference in the total effective rate between the two groups (P>0.05); there were statistically significant differences between the two groups in score evaluation of lasting time of abdominal pain and frequency of diarrhea, HPM is prior to GPM (P=0.032, P=0.044). There are no statistical significant differences between the two groups in scores evaluation of general symptom, three main symptoms, quality of life (QOL), frequency and severity of abdominal pain, times, and pattern of diarrhea (all P>0.05). There was a statistical significant difference in the improvement of Mayo score between the two groups, and HPM was superior to GPM (P=0.048).

Conclusion

HPM and GPM are both promising ways to treat UC, and the total effect is quite similar. HPM is superior to GPM in the improvement of lasting time of abdominal pain and frequency of diarrhea, and also the Mayo score.