摘要
目的:比较电针丘墟穴和天枢穴对偏头痛的疗效,探讨影响疗效的因素。方法:将275例患者随机分为试验组138例,采用电针丘墟穴治疗;对照组137例,采用电针天枢穴治疗。观察两组的疗效,并对影响因素进行分析。结果:试验组即时有效率为70.3%,对照组为58.4%,两组比较,P<0.05,治疗4周、随访3个月和6个月疗效比较均P<0.001,电针丘墟穴的效果优于电针天枢穴;电针治疗偏头痛对从事脑力劳动人群、治疗时疼痛评分高、偏头痛发作次数多的人群即时镇痛效果更好;电针治疗偏头痛的长期疗效丘墟穴优于天枢穴。结论:电针丘墟穴治疗偏头痛的疗效优于天枢穴,患者的职业和病情等是影响疗效的因素。
Objective To compare therapeutic effects of electrical acupuncture （EA） at Qiuxu （GB 40） and Tianshu （ST 25）, and to probe the factors of influencing the therapeutic effect. Methods Two hundred and seventy-five cases were randomly divided into the test group of 138 cases treated with EA at Qiuxu （GB 40） and the control group of 137 cases treated with EA at Tianshu （ST 25）. Their therapeutic effects were observed and the factors influencing the therapeutic effect were analyzed. Results The transient effective rate was 70. 3% in the test group and 58.4%in the control group with a significant difference between the two groups （P〈0. 05）, and there were very significant differences between the two groups in the therapeutic effects at treatment of 4 weeks, and following-up 3 and 6 months later （P〈0. 001）, the transient analgesic effect of EA at Qiuxu （GB 40） being better. EA had better transient effect on migraine for the mental workers, or the patient with high pain score at treatment, or more frequent attack. The long-term analgesic effect of EA at Qiuxu （GB 40） was better than Tianshu （ST 25）. Conclusion The analgesic effect of EA at Qiuxu （GB 40） is better than Tianshu （ST 25） and the profession and conditions of the patient are the factors influencing the therapeutic effect.
出处
《中国针灸》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2007年第8期557-561,共5页
Chinese Acupuncture & Moxibustion
基金
国家中医药管理局项目:03XDLZ17
关键词
电针
偏头痛/针灸疗法
穴
丘墟
穴
天枢
Eleetroaeupuneture
Migraine/am therl Point GB 40 （Qiuxu）
Point ST 25 （Tianshu）
