ABSTRACT
<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To compare the difference in the clinical efficacy on post-stroke upper limb spasmodic hemiplegia between the combined therapy ofneedling technique and Bobath technology and simple Bobath technology.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Sixty patients were randomized into an observation group and a control group, 30 cases in each one. The usual medication of neurological internal medicine was used in the two groups. In the control group, Bobath facilitation technology was applied to the rehabilitation training. In the observation group, on the basis of the treatment as the control group,needling technique was used to stimulate Zhongfu (LU 1), Tianfu (LU 3), Chize (LU 5), Quchi (LI 11), Jianshi (PC 5) and Daling (PC 7). The treatment was given once a day; 5 treatments made one session and totally 4-week treatment was required in the two groups. The modified Ashworth scale, the modified Fugle-Meyer assessment (FMA) and the Barthel index (BI) were adopted to evaluate the muscular tension, the upper limb motor function and the activities of daily living (ADL) before and after treatment in the two groups. The clinical efficacy was compared between the two groups.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Compared with those before treatment, the modified Ashworth scale, Fugl-Meyer score and BI score were all improved after treatment in the two groups (all<0.01). The results in the observation group were better than those in the control group (all<0.01). The total clinical effective rate was 93.3% (28/30) in the observation group and was 80.0% (24/30) in the control group. The efficacy in the observation group was better than that in the control group (<0.05).</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>Theneedling technique combined with Bobath therapy achieve the superior efficacy on post-stroke upper limb spasmodic hemiplegia as compared with the simple application Bobath therapy. This combined treatment effectively relieve spasmodic state and improve the upper limb motor function and the activities of daily living.</p>
ABSTRACT
<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To observe the effect difference between reinforcing-reducing manipulation and "" manipulation for amblyopia in children.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>A total of 68 children patients with amblyopia were assigned into an observation group and a control group by random number table, 34 cases (68 eyes) in each one. In the observation group, reinforcing-reducing manipulation was used at Yuyao (EX-HN 4), Taiyang (EX-HN 5), Tongziliao (GB 1), Jingming (BL 1), Cuanzhu (BL 2), and Chengqi (ST 1); twirling-reinforcing method was applied at Ganshu (BL 18), Shenshu (BL 23), and Guangming (GB 37);""manipulation was applied at bilateral Fengchi (GB 20). The acupoints and manipulations in the control group were the same as those in the observation group, except Fengchi (GB 20) with reinforcing-reducing method. All the treatment was given for 4 courses, 5 times as a course and once a day. The vision improvement was observed half a year after treatment.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>The effective rates for ametropic amblyopia in the observation and control groups were respectively 92.0% (23/25) and 70.4% (19/27); anisometropic amblyopia, 85.7% (18/21) and 55.0% (11/20); strabismic amblyopia, 66.7% (12/18) and 29.4% (5/17). The effect of each type in the observation group was better than that in the control group (all<0.05).</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>""manipulation for amblyopia is superior to reinforcing-reducing method and can obviously improve the vision.</p>