论文部分内容阅读
目的 :比较消炎解痛膏的凝胶剂与橡胶型抗炎症的疗效。方法 :凝胶剂组 10 0例 (男性 69例 ,女性 31例 ;年龄 4 9a±s2 5a) ,对照组为消炎解痛膏 (橡胶型 ) 60例 (男性 2 6例 ,女性 34例 ;年龄 4 6a± 2 1a)治疗病种均为膝关节骨关节炎、肩周炎、腰间盘突出症等伤骨科常见疾病 ,每 12h贴患处 1～ 2张 ,连续治疗 7d ,观察局部疼痛、活动度及皮肤反应。结果 :凝胶剂组总有效率 88% ,橡胶型组总有效率 80 % (P >0 .0 5) ,但凝胶剂组无 1例出现皮肤搔痒或皮疹 ,而橡胶型组皮疹率达 2 3% ,经t检验差别有非常显著意义 (P <0 .0 1)。结论 :凝胶剂组与橡胶型组具有相同的治疗效果 ,而凝胶剂的皮肤过敏率低
Objective: To compare the efficacy of anti-inflammatory pain gel cream and rubber-type anti-inflammation. Methods: A total of 10 cases (69 males and 31 females; age 49a ± s2 5a) were included in the gel group. The control group consisted of 60 cases of antiphlogistic and analgesic cream (rubber type) (26 males and 34 females; age 4 6a ± 2 1a) Treatment of diseases are knee osteoarthritis, frozen shoulder, lumbar disc herniation and other orthopedic common diseases, posted every 12h the affected area 1, 2, continuous treatment 7d, observe the local pain, activity Degree and skin reaction. Results: The total effective rate of gel group was 88%, while the total effective rate of rubber group was 80% (P> 0.05). However, none of the gel group had skin itching or rash, while the rubber group had 23%, the difference was significant by t test (P <0.01). Conclusion: The gel group and the rubber group have the same therapeutic effect, while the gel skin allergy rate is low