论文部分内容阅读
目的:探讨空气压力波与安诺治疗仪联合治疗糖尿病周围神经病变对神经传导速度的影响。方法:对123例住院的2型糖尿病的患者,凡是符合:(1)有糖尿病周围神经病变临床症状(密歇根问卷评分≥4分);(2)感觉神经定量测定异常(密歇根体检≥2分);(3)神经电图有神经传导速度异常。同时具备上述三条者,可确诊DPN并纳入研究。随机分为四组,分别采取:常规治疗组,常规治疗+红外线激光照射,常规治疗+空气压力波,常规治疗+空气压力波+红外线激光照射治疗,每组治疗2周。治疗前测定空腹血糖(FPG),餐后2h血糖(2hPG),空腹胰岛素(FIns)、糖化血红蛋白(HbA1c),治疗前后测尺神经、正中神经和腓总神经传导速度及“神经病变主觉症状问卷”(密歇根评分)做为观察指标进行相关分析研究。结果治疗2周后,FPG、2hPG和各组比较,无明显差异,(P﹥0.01);各组治疗后运动神经传导速度(MNCV)和感觉神经传导速度(SNCV)治疗前后无明显差异(P>0.05),各组密歇根评分较治疗前均有改善(P<0.05),但空气压力波联合红外线激光治疗组较其他治疗组评分改善更明显,(P<0.05)。结论各组治疗后密歇根评分较治疗前均有改善,但空气压力波与安诺治疗仪联合治疗组密歇根评分改善与其他三组比较改善更显著;对神经传导速度的影响各治疗组无明显差异,可能与治疗时间短,神经修复本身是一比较缓慢的过程。
Objective: To investigate the effect of air pressure wave combined with Anno therapy on peripheral nerve conduction velocity in diabetic patients. Methods: A total of 123 inpatients with type 2 diabetes were eligible for: (1) clinical symptoms of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (score of 4 in the Michigan questionnaire); (2) abnormal sensory nerve quantification (2 in Michigan) ; (3) neuroelectronic nerve conduction velocity abnormalities. At the same time with the above three, can be confirmed DPN and included in the study. The patients were randomly divided into four groups: conventional treatment group, conventional therapy + infrared laser irradiation, conventional therapy + air pressure wave, conventional therapy + air pressure wave + infrared laser irradiation. Each group was treated for 2 weeks. Before treatment, the fasting blood glucose (FPG), 2h postprandial blood glucose (2hPG), fasting insulin (FIns), HbA1c were measured before and after treatment. The sensory nerve conduction velocity, median nerve and common peroneal nerve conduction velocity, Symptom Questionnaire "(Michigan score) as an indicator for the relevant analysis. Results There was no significant difference between FPG, 2hPG and each group after 2 weeks of treatment (P> 0.01). There was no significant difference between before and after treatment of motor nerve conduction velocity (MNCV) and sensory nerve conduction velocity (SNCV) after treatment > 0.05). The score of Michigan in each group was improved compared with that before treatment (P <0.05), but the air pressure wave combined with infrared laser treatment group improved more significantly than other treatment groups (P <0.05). Conclusions After treatment, the score of Michigan improved compared with that of before treatment, but the improvement of Michigan score was more significant than the other three groups in the combination of air pressure wave and Annuo therapeutic apparatus. The effect on nerve conduction velocity was not significantly different among the treatment groups , May be short treatment time, nerve repair itself is a relatively slow process.