平衡针法治疗膝骨性关节炎的临床疗效观察

目的：观察平衡针法治疗膝骨性关节炎的临床疗效，为临床治疗本病提供更有效的治疗方法。方法：将61例符合纳入标准的观察对象，按首次来诊的先后顺序，用随机数字表法随机分为两组，治疗组31例采用平衡针法针刺，对照组30例采用传统针刺。两组病例均每日治疗1次，6次为1疗程，疗程间间隔3－4d，临床观察2个疗程后进行视觉模拟定级WAS）评定、膝关节症状和体征分级量化，并判定疗效。结果：①在VAS评分方面，两组VAS积分自身前后比较均有显著性差异（P〈0．01），两组间治疗后比较有显著性差异（P〈0．05）；②在膝关节症状和体征改善方面，两组症状和体征总积分自身前后比较均有显著性差异（P〈0．01），两组间治疗后比较有显著性差异（P〈0．05），其中两组间治疗后行走时疼痛、关节肿胀、关节活动度比较有显著性差异（P〈0．05），晨僵或起床后疼痛、休息时疼痛比较无显著性差异（P〉0．05）；③治疗组总有效率为93．54％，对照组总有效率为83．3％，两组比较有显著性差异（P〈0．05）。结论：①在VAS评分方面，两种疗法均能改善膝关节疼痛，治疗组优于对照组；②在膝关节症状和体征改善方面，两组均能改善膝关节症状和体征，其中治疗组在改善行走时疼痛、关节肿胀、关节活动度方面优于对照组，在晨僵或起床后疼痛、休息时疼痛方面，两组有类似的疗效；③治疗组临床疗效优于对照组，平衡针治疗本病有一定优势。

Clinical observation of balance needling for treatment of knee osteoarthritis

Objective： To observe the clinical curative effect of balance needling for treatment of knee osteoarthritis and provide a more effective treatment method. Methods： According to the sequence of first visit time, 61 patients were randomly divided into 2 groups with random digits table. 31 patients in treatment group were treated with balance needling and 30 patients in control group were treated with traditional needling, once daily, 6 times for one course, totally for two courses, 3-4 days interval between two courses. Two courses later, VAS scores, sings and symptoms grading quantification of knee joint were evaluated. Results：①VAS scores： a significant difference was noted in two groups before and after treatment （P〈0.01）, and noted between the two groups after treatment （P〈0.05）; ②In the aspect of knee joint signs and symptoms improvement： two groups＇ signs and symptoms total scores before and after were significant difference （P〈0.01）, and comparison between 2 groups after treatment was significant difference （P〈0.05）. Among them, there was a significant difference between 2 groups in the pain while walking, joint swelling and motion of joint after treatment （P〈0.05）, but no significant difference noted in morning stiffness, pain at rest or after getting up （P〉0.05）; ③The total effective rate was 93.54% in treatment group and 83.33% in control group, with a significant differences between two groups （P〈0.05）. Conclusion： ①In the aspect of VAS scores, both groups can relive the knee pain, but the result in treatment group is better; ②In the knee joint symptoms and signs improvement, both groups can improve the knee joint symptoms and signs. Among them, the result of treatment group is better in improvement of the pain while walking, joint swelling and motion of joint, but the curative effect of 2 groups is similar in morning stiffness, pain at rest or after getting up; ③Clinical curative effect of the treatment group is better than that of the