| Literature DB >> 34966521 |
Hui Li1, Li Yu1, Dayong Ye1, Li Chang1, Fengzhu Zhao1, Hong Wang1, Tiance Zhang1.
Abstract
This study was designed to probe into the improvement of rehabilitation training combined with Jiaji electroacupuncture intervention on patients with upper limb peripheral nerve injury. A total of 114 patients with peripheral nerve injury of upper limbs in our hospital from August 2017 to November 2019 were collected as the research participants. Among them, 59 in the control group (CG) received rehabilitation training alone, while 65 in the observation group (OG) received rehabilitation training combined with Jiaji electroacupuncture intervention. The therapeutic efficacy, Barthel index, and Fugl-Meyer assessment score, motor nerve conduction velocity, sensory nerve conduction velocity and amplitude, and quality of life (score SF-36) were compared between the two groups before and after treatment. The total effective rate of the OG was markedly higher than that of the CG. After treatment, the Barthel index, Fugl-Meyer assessment score, motor nerve conduction velocity, and sensory nerve conduction velocity and amplitude of the OG were obviously higher than those of the CG, and the SF-36 scores of the OG were higher than those of the CG in 8 dimensions. Rehabilitation training combined with Jiaji electroacupuncture intervention can dramatically promote the recovery of muscle group function and improve the quality of life of patients with upper limb peripheral nerve injury.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34966521 PMCID: PMC8712162 DOI: 10.1155/2021/3621568
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Clinical data sheet.
| Control group ( | Observation group ( |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 37 (62.71) | 45 (69.23) | 0.587 | 0.444 |
| Female | 22 (37.29) | 20 (30.77) | 0.695 | 0.393 |
| Age (years) | 38.2 ± 8.7 | 37.6 ± 8.3 | ||
| Injury time (h) | 5.09 ± 1.17 | 5.04 ± 1.19 | 0.236 | 0.814 |
| Injury site | 0.874 | 0.646 | ||
| Radial nerve | 24 (40.68) | 29 (44.62) | ||
| Ulnar nerve | 17 (28.81) | 27 (41.54) | ||
| Median nerve | 18 (30.51) | 19 (29.23) | ||
| Cause of injuries | 3.917 | 0.271 | ||
| Traffic accidents | 16 (27.12) | 13 (20.00) | ||
| Incised wound | 9 (15.25) | 12 (18.46) | ||
| Hinge rolling injury | 20 (33.90) | 31 (47.69) | ||
| Puncture wound | 14 (23.73) | 9 (13.85) | ||
| Degree of nerve rupture | 0.700 | 0.403 | ||
| Incomplete fracture | 31 (52.54) | 39 (60.00) | ||
| Complete fracture | 28 (47.46) | 26 (40.00) | ||
| Operation modes | ||||
| Repair of neurological defect | 34 (57.63) | 40 (61.54) | 0.282 | 0.869 |
| Neuroanastomosis | 10 (16.95) | 9 (13.85) | ||
| Neurolysis | 15 (25.42) | 16 (24.61) | ||
| Extent of damage | 0.955 | 0.328 | ||
| Moderate injury | 25 (42.37) | 22 (33.85) | ||
| Severe injury | 34 (57.63) | 43 (66.15) |
Therapeutic effect table.
| Control group ( | Observation group ( |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Markedly effective | 18 (30.51) | 27 (41.54) | 1.627 | 0.202 |
| Effective | 29 (49.15) | 33 (50.77) | 0.032 | 0.857 |
| Ineffective | 12 (20.34) | 5 (7.69) | 4.181 | 0.041 |
| Total effective rate | 47 (79.66) | 60 (92.31) |
Figure 1Changes of ADL and upper limb motor function. (a) The Barthel index of both groups after treatment is significantly higher than that before treatment and that of the observation group is significantly higher than that of the control group after treatment. (b) After treatment, the scores of Fugl–Meyer assessment scale in the two groups are significantly higher than those before treatment, and the observation group is significantly higher than that in the control group.
Figure 2Changes of neurophysiological indicators before and after treatment. (a) Motor nerve conduction velocity of two groups of patients after treatment is significantly higher than that before treatment and that of the observation group is significantly higher than that of the control group after treatment. (b) Sensory nerve conduction velocity of the two groups after treatment is significantly higher than that before treatment, and the observation group is significantly higher than that of the control group after treatment. (c) After treatment, the amplitude of patients in the two groups is significantly higher than that before treatment and that in the observation group is significantly higher than that in the control group after treatment.
SF-36 scoring results table.
| Control group ( | Observation group ( |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physiological function | 63.56 ± 17.25 | 70.26 ± 16.93 | 2.181 | 0.031 |
| Mental health | 54.26 ± 14.33 | 66.52 ± 16.23 | 4.440 | <0.001 |
| Somatic pain | 64.64 ± 15.36 | 74.84 ± 12.75 | 4.037 | <0.001 |
| Emotional function | 60.62 ± 15.38 | 68.20 ± 17.52 | 2.549 | 0.012 |
| Energy | 51.53 ± 13.92 | 57.42 ± 13.55 | 2.386 | 0.019 |
| Social role | 51.37 ± 22.15 | 61.76 ± 16.64 | 2.970 | 0.004 |
| Health status | 54.33 ± 12.85 | 62.39 ± 11.24 | 3.725 | <0.001 |
| Social function | 52.46 ± 13.65 | 58.77 ± 12.94 | 2.642 | 0.009 |