A Controlled Clinical Study On Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation And Drug In The Treatment Of Children With Tic Disorder

Objective： By clinical study, comparing the clinical curative effect of cranialelectrotherapy stimulation (CES) and drug tiapride in the treatment of children with ticdisorder (TD), so as to provide reference for the clinical treatment of TD.Method：A clinical trial was designed.42untreated patients were divided into2treatment groups: tiapride group and CES group. The tiapride group were20cases, CES22cases. At the age of6~15years old, samples are all meet the American "diagnosticand Statistical Manual of mental disorders fourth edition"(DSM-Ⅳ) diagnostic criteriafor TD. They were given tiapride and CES treatment respectively for2courses. By theYale Global Tic Severity Scale (YGTSS), Integrated Visual and Auditory ContinuousPerformance Test (IVA-CPT), Conner’s Child Behavior Questionnaire (parents’ scale,PSQ) and Cancellation Test to evaluate the efficacy before and after treatment betweentwo groups.Results:(1) Improvement of tic symptom: before treatment, the YGTSS scores oftiapride group and CES group were (47.70±11.15) and (50.23±15.28),there were nosignificant difference between two groups(P>0.05). After1courses of treatment, twogroups of YGTSS scores were decreased, which tiapride group YGTSS scores were (35.30±10.32), CES group (32.95±14.20).There were significant differences betweentwo groups of YGTSS scores before and after treatment (P<0.05). After2course oftreatment, tiapride group YGTSS score decreased to (26.10±9.06) and group CESYGTSS total score decreased to (18.73±13.69), CES group YGTSS total scoredecreased significantly lower than tiapride group (p<0.05). After2courses of treatment,tiapride group and CES treatment group total effective rate were80%and95.5%.Nosignificant difference was found between two groups (P>0.05).(2) Improvement of behavior problem: before treatment, the6factors of PSQ were nodifference between tiapride group and CES treatment group (P>0.05). After2course oftreatment of tiapride group, conduct problems, learning problems, impulsivity andhyperactivity, hyperactivity index compared with those before treatment wasstatistically significant (p<0.05),however, CES group of all the6factors havesignificant difference compared with those before treatment (p<0.05).(3) Attention improvement: Before tiapride and ces treatment, Full Scale ResponseControl Quotient and Full Scale attention Quotient had no statistically significantdifference (p>0.05), After2courses of treatment, two kinds of quotient was increasedsignificantly difference compared with before treatment (p<0.01).(4) Selective attention and cognitive processing ability improvement: Before treatmenttwo group of coarse points, error, net score was not statistically significant (p>0.05).After1course of treatment, tiapride group’s coarse points, error, net score comparedwith those before treatment had no significant difference (p>0.05), and CES group’scoarse points, net score compared with those before treatment were significantlydifferent (p<0.01). After2courses, tiapride group coarse points, net score wasstatistically significant compared with those before treatment,however, error points hadno significant difference than before (p>0.05), and CES group’s coarse points, error, netscore highly statistically significant differences compared with those before treatment(p<0.01). (5) Adverse reactions: Adverse reactions of two groups were9.1%and25%, nosignificant difference (χ2=0.935, p>0.05).Conclusion: The clinical curative effect of cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES) onchildren with TD was effectively, and was similar with tiapride, and safety, less adversereaction.