Clinica Research On Broca Aphasia After Cerebral Infarction By Low Electromagenetic Therapy Associated With Language Training

Objective To analyse factors affecting motor aphasia rehabilitation,explore theefficacy of low electromagenetic therapy for motor aphasia after cerebral infarction throughclinical research;Observe differences in efficacy between motor aphasia rehabilitation andsingle Schuell Stimulation;Investigate the low electromagenetic therapy on the clinical valueof motor aphasia,in order to seek a safe and effective method for patients with motor aphasia.Methods Select the diagnosis of43cases by the Aphasia Battery of Chinese (ABC)for motor aphasia patients after acute cerebral infarction in the Ningxia Hui AutonomousRegion People’s Hospital, Department of Neurology.43cases were randomly divided intotreatment group23cases(low electromagenetic therapy+Schuell Stimulation)and controlgroup of20cases(Schuell Stimulation).Oral expression,comprehension,reading and writingscore are determinated by ABC.Aphasia severity assessed by Boston diagnostic aphasiaexamination(BDAE).Efficacy was assessed by the BDAE severity classification to improvethe rating.After one month,the above-mentioned indicators were again assessed,then analychanges before and after treatment in case-control study.Results (1)Baseline analysis:①Treatment and control groups in gender,age,educationlevel were no significant differences, P>0.05,using the χ2test.②Treatment group and controlgroup conversation,listening to comprehension,retelling,naming,reading,writing scores wereno significant differences, P>0.05,using the independent samples t-test. The treatment groupand control group were no significant differences in Communication Ability of DailyLiving(CADL) and severity.So these two groups were comparable.(2) Curative Effect:①G roups before and after treatment in every language: the convertion,listening to comprehension,retelling,naming,reading and writing of two groupimproved than before treatment(P<0.01),there were statistically significant.②Differencebetween the two groups after treatment in ABC: the sores of the treatment groupconversation,retelling,naming increased than the control group, P<0.05,statisticallysignificant.③Comparison in CADL scores: the scores of treatment and control group inCADL were improved with statistically significant(P<0.01).The CADL score of the treatmentgroup were improved than the control group between two groups after treatment,butdifference was not statistically significant(P>0.05).④The comparison of BDAE severitygrading:after one month,the severity of the treatment group reduced than the controlgroup,and the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).(3)Analysis of influencing fators:①T he educational level:total effective rate of primary school education is50%,the totalefficiency of secondary school level and above is93.55%,and the difference was statisticallysignificant(P<0.01) between two groups.②T he age: The total effectiverate of less than65-year-old patients is90.9%, equal orgreater than65years patients with total effective rate of71.43%,but the two groups were notstatistically significant difference(P>0.05).③G ender:male patients after treatment,the total effective rate of83.87%,female patientswith total effective rate of75%,the difference was not statistically significant(P>0.05).Conclusion:1.Low Electromagenetic Therapy with the Schuell Stimulation treats motor aphasiasuperior to simple Schuell Stimulation,especially in conversation,retelling,naming,so it isimportant to improve patients’ aphasia severity.2.Factor analysis of motor aphasia rehabilitation,indicate that the higher education,the better prognosis of aphasia,no significant relationship between gender and age.