摘要
目的:比较以风池穴为主运用温通针法与常规针刺治疗突发性耳鸣耳聋的疗效差异。方法:将62例患者随机分为温通针法组(32例)、常规针刺组(30例)。温通针法组采用风池穴运用温通针法并配合耳局部、远端取穴,运用捻转平补平泻法;常规针刺组在风池穴及耳局部、远端所取的穴位均运用捻转平补平泻法。治疗3个疗程后,比较2组疗效及随访结果。结果:温通针法组的愈显率为90.6%,有效率和复发率分别为96.9%和3.4%;常规针刺组的愈显率为60.0%,有效率和复发率分别为80.0%和22.2%。经统计学处理,2组愈显率比较差异有非常显著性意义(P<0.01),2组有效率和复发率比较差异均有显著性意义(P<0.05)。结论:温通针法组疗效明显优于常规针刺组,且愈后复发率更低。
Objective To compare therapeutic effects of acupuncture at Fengchi （GB 20） as main with warmingremoving obstruction needling method and routine acupuncture on sudden tinnitus and deafness. Methods Sixty- two cases were randomly divided into a warming-removing obstruction needling method group （n=32） and a routine acupuncture group（n= 30）. The warming-removing obstruction needling method group were treated with acupunc- ture at Fengchi （GB 20） as main point with warming-removing obstruction needling method,in combination with local, distant points of ear with twirling uniform reinforcing-reducing method used; and the routine acupuncture group were treated with acupuncture at local and distant points of ear with twirling uniform reinforcing-reducing method a- dopted. After treatment for 3 courses , their therapeutic effects were compared and followed-up. Results The cured-markedly effective rate, the effective rate and the recurrence rate were 90.6%, 96.9% and 3.4% in the warming-removing obstruction needling method group, and 60. 0%, 80. 0% and 22.2% in the routine acupuncture group, with a very significant difference in the cured-markedly effective rate （P〈0. 01） and with a significant diffe- rence in the effective rate and the recurrence rate （P〈0.05） between the two groups. Condusion The therapeutic effect of the warming-removing obstruction needling method group is significantly better than that of the routine acupuncture group with lower recurrence rate after cure.
出处
《中国针灸》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2008年第5期353-355,共3页
Chinese Acupuncture & Moxibustion
