摘要
目的:观察不同针刺方法对干眼症的临床疗效差异。方法:将60例干眼症患者随机分为观察组和对照组,每组30例(60眼)。两组均穴取上睛明、下睛明、瞳子髎、攒竹、风池、合谷、三阴交、太溪、太冲,对照组采用常规针刺加电针治疗,观察组采用导气针刺法加电针治疗,电针穴取双侧瞳子髎、攒竹,每次留针30 min。1周治疗3次,治疗1个月,共12次。观察两组治疗前后眼部症状积分、泪膜破裂时间(BUT)、泪液分泌试验(SⅠT)及视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分,并比较两组的临床疗效。结果:治疗后,两组患者眼部症状积分、BUT、SⅠT及VAS评分均较治疗前改善(均P<0.001),观察组在改善眼部症状积分和SIT方面优于对照组(均P<0.05),两组在改善BUT及VAS评分方面差异无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。观察组总有效率为86.7%(52/60),优于对照组的73.3%(44/60,P<0.05)。结论:常规电针治疗及导气针刺法加电针治疗对干眼症均有疗效,且导气针刺法加电针治疗干眼症的疗效优于常规电针。
Objective To observe the clinical efficacy differences between different needling methods for dry eye syndrome. Methods Sixty patients of dry eye syndrome were randomly divided into an observation group and a control group, 30 cases（60 eyes） in each group. Shangjingming（Extra）, Xiajingming（Extra）, Tongziliao（GB 1）, Cuanzhu（BL 2）, Fengchi（GB 20）, Hegu（LI 4）,Sanyinjiao（SP 6）, Taixi（KI 3） and Taichong（LR 3） were selected in the two groups. The control group was treated with conventional acupuncture, while the observation group was treated with guiding-qi acupuncture. Electroacupuncture（EA） was used at bilateral Tongziliao（GB1） and Cuanzhu（BL 2）, 30 min per treatment. The treatment was given three times per week. Totally 1-month treatment（12 treatments） was given. The eye symptom score, breakup time of tear film（BUT）, Schirmer Ⅰ test（SⅠT） and visual analogue scale（VAS） score were compared before and after treatment in the two groups. The clinical efficacy was compared between the two groups. Results Compared before treatment, the eye symptom score, BUT, SⅠT and VAS score were improved after treatment in the two groups（all P 0.001）; the improvements of eye symptom score and SⅠT in the observation group were superior to those in the control group（both P0.05）. The differences of BUT and VSA score between the two groups were not significant（both P0.05）. The total effective rate was 86.7%（52/60） in the observation group, which was superior to 73.3%（44/60） in the control group（P0.05）. Conclusion The conventional EA and guiding-qi acupuncture combined with EA are both effective for dry eye syndrome, and the efficacy of guiding-qi acupuncture combined with EA is superior to that of conventional EA.
出处
《中国针灸》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2018年第2期153-157,共5页
Chinese Acupuncture & Moxibustion
基金
上海市进一步加快中医药事业发展三年行动计划建设项目:ZY3-JSFC-1-1023
上海市卫生和计划生育委员会中医药科研基金项目:2014 LP 106 A
