择时针刺结合热敏灸治疗原发性痛经32例

Timing Acupuncture Combined with Heat-Sensitive Moxibustion in the Treatment of 32 Cases of Primary Dysmenorrhea

摘要: 目的：观察择时针刺结合热敏灸治疗痛经寒凝血瘀证的临床效果。方法：将符合标准的64例受试者，按就诊顺序，随机分配为2组，每组32例。观察组采用择时针刺结合热敏灸干预，对照组采用常规针刺治疗痛经，均治疗3个疗程，分别收集治疗前，治疗3疗程后2组的VAS评分及痛经症状积分表，对比观察2组治疗前后的评分并对2组治疗后的临床效果进行数据分析。结果：与治疗前相比，两组的VAS评分均下降(p < 0.05)。治疗后，观察组的VAS评分低于对照组(p < 0.05)，且VAS差值比较，观察组高于对照组(p < 0.05)，表明观察组对痛经疼痛改善程度明显优于对照组。与治疗前相比，两组的痛经症状评分均下降(p < 0.05)。治疗后，观察组的痛经症状评分低于对照组(p < 0.05)，且痛经症状评分差值比较，观察组高于对照组(p < 0.05)，表明观察组对痛经症状改善明显优于对照组。观察组治疗总有效率93.75% (30/32)，优于对照组的71.88% (23/32) (p < 0.05)。

Abstract: Objective: to observe the clinical effect of time-selective acupuncture combined with heat-sensitive moxibustion on dysmenorrhea with cold coagulation and blood stasis syndrome. Methods: 64 sub-jects were randomly divided into 2 groups, 32 in each group. The Observation Group was treated with time-selective acupuncture combined with heat-sensitive moxibustion, while the control group was treated with routine acupuncture for dysmenorrheal. After 3 courses of treatment, VAS scores and dysmenorrhea symptom scores of the two groups were compared before and after treatment, and the clinical effects of the two groups were analyzed. Results: compared with before treatment, VAS scores of both groups decreased (p < 0.05). After treatment, the VAS score of the observation group was lower than that of the control group (p < 0.05), and the difference of Vas was higher in the observation group than in the control group (p < 0.05). The scores of dysmenorrhea symptoms were decreased in both groups as compared with those before treatment (p < 0.05). After treatment, the scores of dysmenorrhea symptoms in the observation group were lower than those in the control group (p < 0.05), and the difference of the scores of dysmenorrhea symptoms in the observation group was higher than that in the control group (p < 0.05), indicating that the improvement of dysmenorrhea symptoms in the observation group was obviously superior to that in the control group. The total effective rate of the observation group was 93.75% (30/32), which was superior to that of the control group (71.88%, 23/32) (p < 0.05).