中医综合疗法治疗不同年龄段小儿脑瘫的对比分析-comparative analysis of comprehensive therapy of traditional chinese medicine in treating cerebral palsy in children of different ages.docxVIP

中医综合疗法治疗不同年龄段小儿脑瘫的对比研究 中 文 摘 要 目的： 本研究通过观察中医综合疗法治疗不同年龄段小儿脑瘫的 临床疗效，探讨分析不同治疗时机疗效的差异，为临床治疗小儿脑瘫提 供较完善的治疗方法和治疗的最佳时机。 方法： 在患儿监护人知情同意的前提下，将符合纳入标准的60例 脑瘫患儿按时机不同分为A组（1岁以内）、B组（1-2岁）、C组（2岁以后） 共3小组，每小组20例。每组均予中医综合疗法治疗，隔日1次，每周治 疗3次，疗程为3个月。采用粗大运动功能评定量表（GMFM）和脑瘫儿 童综合功能评定表，观察各组治疗前后患儿粗大运动功能和综合功能的 变化，并分析组间疗效的差异性。 结 果 ： 1.GMFM 量表评定：治疗后组内比较，三组治疗后量表总 积分较治疗前增加，P0.05，提示中医综合疗法对三组患儿均有效；治 疗后组间比较，P0.05，差异具有统计学意义，1 岁以内组比 1-2 岁组和 2 岁以上组均疗效明显。2.脑瘫儿童综合功能评定表：治疗后组内比较， 三组患儿在认知功能、言语功能、运动能力、自理动作及社会适应性方 面均比治疗前改善；治疗后组间比较，P0.05，差异具有统计学意义， 提示 1 岁以内组比 1-2 岁组和 2 岁以上组在综合功能改善方面疗效更为显 著。3.三组愈显率比较，1 岁以内组优于 1-2 岁组，1-2 岁组优于 2 岁以 上组，差异均具有显著性(P0.05)。 结 论 ：研究结果表明，1 岁以内组的愈显率和功能评定积分变化与 1-2 岁组和 2 岁以上组相比，具有显著差异性，说明患儿年龄越小，其临 床症状和肢体功能改善越明显，疗效越好。治疗时机对患儿的残疾程度 及肢体功能改善起到重要作用。 关键词： 中医，小儿脑瘫，综合疗法，年龄 Comparative study on Different timing treatment of Cerebral Palsy with The Comprehensive ther apy of traditional Chinese medicine ABSTRACT Objective: Through this study to observe the clinical curative effect of integrated traditional Chinese medicine therapy for treatment of children with cerebral palsy in different time, at different difference of curative effect, provides the best opportunity for treatment and is perfect for the clinical treatment of children with cerebral palsy. Methods: In the premise with the guardians of informed consent, will meet in 60 children with cerebral palsy according to different timing of inclusion criteria were divided into A group (1 years old), B group (1-2 years old), C group (2 years old) a total of 3 groups, 20 cases per group. Each group were treated with combination therapy of traditional Chinese medicine, tertian 1, treatment 3 times a week, treatment for 3 months. Using the gross motor function assessment scale (GMFM) and cerebral palsy comprehensive function assessment scale, to observe the change of their gross motor function and comprehensive function was observed before and after treatment, and difference analysis between group effect of. Results: 1.GMFM scale evaluation: comparison gro