| Literature DB >> 35530165 |
Juhua Zhang1, Yingmei Mu1, Yunxia Zhang1.
Abstract
Stroke is a disease with a high disability rate, having a serious impact on that patient's working and daily survival quality and bringing economic burden to the family and society. Patients with stroke hemiplegia are mostly tetraplegic and have difficulty regulating their balance, and their long-term symmetry has been destroyed. The application in the rehabilitation process of acupuncture in patients with hemorrhagic stroke may produce unexpected effects. It is very effective to study the effect of acupuncture combined with rehabilitation training on limb movement and patient survival. It is very helpful in improving normal motor function and normal life, increasing joint mobility and muscle strength, and reducing muscle tension. In this paper, it is found that the observational group has a complication rate of 2.13%, in contrast to 17.02% as in the group of control, and the pin-prick combined with a rehabilitative training makes a significant improvement to the patients. This study provides suggestions for the study to investigate acupuncture combined with recovery exercise on limb movement and living capacities of people with stroke paraparesis.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35530165 PMCID: PMC9072040 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2032093
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Behav Neurol ISSN: 0953-4180 Impact factor: 3.112
Figure 1Data processing process.
Comparison of the incidence of complications between the two groups (n).
| Group | Number of cases | Intracranial hypertension | Glycemic change | Pneumonia | Total incidence (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation group | 47 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2.13% |
| Control group | 47 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 17.02% |
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.424% |
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.035% |
Comparison of neurological deficit score and mental health score between the two groups (x ± s).
| Group | Number of cases | Neurological deficit score | Mental health score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Observation group | 47 | 2.36 ± 0.26 | 36.65 ± 2.32 |
| Control group | 47 | 4.56 ± 0.22 | 78.25 ± 1.98 |
|
| 44.284 | 93.505 | |
|
| <0.05 | <0.05 |
Comparison of depression scores between the two groups before and after intervention (x ± s).
| Group | Number of cases | Before intervention | Prognosis after intervention | t value |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation group | 47 | 14.65 ± 3.21 | 3.20 ± 0.13 | 24.434 | >0.05 |
| Control group | 47 | 14.66 ± 3.22 | 6.625 ± 0.25 | 17.066 | <0.05 |
|
| 0.015 | 83.205 | |||
|
| >0.05 | <0.05 |
Comparison of Barthel index in daily living ability.
| Group |
| Before rehabilitation | After rehabilitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment group | 30 | 25.12 ± 9.13 | 65.41 ± 13.55 |
| Control group | 30 | 22.83 ± 8.32 | 42.24 ± 12.08 |
Figure 2Comparison of FAC and Fugl-Meyer scores.
Figure 3Comparative analysis of FAC and Fugl-Meyer before and after rehabilitation.
Figure 4Comparison of total effective rate between the two groups (example).
NIHSS scores of the two groups before and after treatment.
| Group | Reciprocal | Before treatment | After treatment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Treatment group | 40 | 28.53 ± 6.2 | 11.12 ± 0.25 |
| Control group | 40 | 28.64 ± 5.5 | 19.5 ± 3.25 |
| P | >0.05 | <0.05 |
Figure 5Comparison of the functions of the two groups before and after treatment (x ± s, n = 20).
Figure 6Comparison of FMA-Ll and MWS between the two groups before and after treatment (x ± s).