目的:通过酒精自由饮建立慢性酒精中毒性大鼠周围神经病变模型,从细胞分子生物学等不同层面探讨电针对慢性酒精中毒型周围神经病的作用机制,为针灸治疗慢性酒精中毒性周围神经病的临床应用提供新的理论依据。方法成年雄性WISTAR大鼠50只,体重200~250 g,随机分成5组,慢性酒精中毒模型组10只,弥可保对照组10只,电针组10只,针刺组10只,空白对照组10只。结果正常坐骨神经的NGFmRNA表达量极低,酒精中毒损伤后坐骨神经NGFmRNA表达明显增高;2~4 w NGFmRNA的表达出现一轻度回落趋势,但4 w后又继续升高。针刺治疗后,治疗组的NGFmRNA表达较模型组均有不同程度升高,其中电针组升高幅度最为明显,始终处于高水平。结论电针可升高酒精中毒性大鼠坐骨神经中NGFmRNA的含量.
Objective:To observe the short-and long-term clinical efficacy differences of body acupuncture and scalp acupuncture combined with extracorporeal shock wave and simple extracorporeal shock wave.Methods:Sixty patients with scapulohumeral periarthritis were randomly divided into two groups:the treatment group and control group,30 cases in each one.Both groups underwent basic rehabilitation training.Patients in the treatment group were treated with body acupuncture and scalp acupuncture combined with extracorporeal shock wave.Yújì(鱼际 LU10),Hégǔ(合谷L14),Zhōngzhǔ(中渚TE3),Hòuxī(后溪SI3).There were three needles for the scalp acupuncture with the first between Shéntíng(神庭 GV24)and Yìntáng(印堂 EX-HN3),and the other two straightly through the inner canthus and parallel to the first needle.Shock wave treatment was intensively applied in some pressure points around shoulder joint.The control group used the same shock wave therapy as the treatment group.Both groups were all treated once a day,6 times a week.Patients were treated for one course which lasted for 4 weeks.VAS score,the Constant-Murley score and the HAMA(the Hamilton Anxiety Scale)are as therapeutic effect index.30 days telephone investigation followed-up after the treatment course was evaluated.Results:Totally 28 cases completed the clinical observation in the treatment group,and 29 cases in the control group.The total effective rate of the treatment group was 85.7%(24/28),which was higher than 69.0%(20/29)of the control group(P<0.05).VAS score:There were significant statistical differences before and after the treatment in the two groups(the treatment group:6.67 ± 1.43 vs 3.47 ± 1.35,the control group:7.57 ± 1.31 vs 5.36 ± 1.45,both P<0.05).There were significant statistical differences before the treatment and at the follow-up in the two groups(the treatment group:6.67 ± 1.43 vs2.68±0.81,the control group:7.57±1.31 vs 4.56±1.35,both P<0.05).The VAS scores of the treatment group after treatment and at the follow-up were re
