| Objectives: Through using multicenter clinical trial,randomized controlled trial(RCT)clinical research methods,and using the NIHSS scale,Barthel index,modified Rankin scale,Fugl-Meyer scale,Wolf motor function test scale,revised Ashworth spasm scale and Watian drinking water test as evaluation indexes to integrate the traditional Chinese medicine rehabilitation methods with modern rehabilitation treatment techniques,and to form a treatment plan for Rehabilitation with Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine.Comparing the integrated scheme with the modern rehabilitation scheme,to observe the improvement of motor function,swallowing function,neurological deficit,daily living ability and social participation of stroke patients before and after treatment to establish a scientific convalescent stage of cerebral infarct to optimize clinical diagnosis and treatment.Methods: The Yueyang Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine,Huadong Hospital,Shanghai Third Rehabilitation Hospital and Chongming Branch of Yueyang Hospital were selected as multicenter clinical trial units.There were a total of 162 patients who met the convalescent stage of cerebral infarct criteria that were collected in to this study.162 patients with cerebral infarction in convalescence were randomly divided into two groups.The experimental group was treated with rehabilitation program of integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine,a total of 78 cases.In the experimental group,78 patients were treated with Rehabilitation with Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine scheme.In the control group,84 cases were treated with the modern rehabilitation scheme being implemented in the rehabilitation department of our hospital.The improvement of the motor function,independence,neurological deficit,daily living ability,and swallowing function in both groups were observed after treatment.In addition,three months after the end of treatment,the followed-up for the patients' motor function and daily living ability were performed.Result:?.The clinical efficacy evaluation results of Yueyang Hospital of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine1.Before treatment,NIHSS score,Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,the Rankin score,WOLF completion time,WOLF score,Ashworth score,Watian drinking water test and Barthel score were compared between the two groups before the treatment.The results were baseline balanced and comparable.2.The efficacy evaluation after 14 days of treatment:(1)In the experimental group,the NIHSS score,Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,the Rankin score,the WOLF completion time,the WOLF score,and the Barthel score were compared.The results showed that they were significantly improved compared with before the treatment(P<0.05);In the control group,the NIHSS score,Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,the Rankin score,the WOLF completion time,the WOLF score,and the Barthel score were compared.The results showed that they were significantly improved compared with before treatment(P<0.05);(2)In the experimental group,the NIHSS score,Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,the Rankin score,the WOLF completion time,the WOLF score,and the Barthel score were compared.The results showed that they were significantly better than the control group(P<0.05).In the experimental group and the control group,Ashworth score and Watian drinking water test were not considered effective(P>0.05).There was no significant difference in Ashworth score and Watian drinking water test between the two groups(P>0.05).3.Follow-up evaluation after 3 months:(1)Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,the Rankin score,and Barthel score were significantly improved compared with that before the treatment(P<0.05).In the control group,Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,the Rankin score,and Barthel score were significantly improved(P<0.05).(2)In the experimental group,Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,the Rankin score,and Barthel score were significantly better than the control group(P<0.05).?.The clinical efficacy evaluation results of Huadong Hospital1.Before treatment,NIHSS score,Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,the Rankin score,WOLF completion time,WOLF score,Ashworth score,Watian drinking water test and Barthel score were compared between the two groups before the treatment.The results were baseline balanced and comparable.2.The efficacy evaluation after 14 days of treatment:(1)In the experimental group,the NIHSS score,Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,the Rankin score,the WOLF completion time,the WOLF score,and the Barthel score were compared.The results showed that they were significantly improved compared with before the treatment(P<0.05);In the control group,the NIHSS score,Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,the Rankin score,the WOLF completion time,the WOLF score,and the Barthel score were compared.The results showed that they were significantly improved compared with before treatment(P<0.05);(2)In the experimental group,the NIHSS score,Fugl-Meyerupper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,the Rankin score,the WOLF completion time,the WOLF score,and the Barthel score were compared.The results showed that they were significantly better than the control group(P<0.05).In the experimental group and the control group,Ashworth score and Watian drinking water test were not considered effective(P>0.05).There was no significant difference in Ashworth score and Watian drinking water test between the two groups(P>0.05).3.Follow-up evaluation after 3 month :(1)Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,the Rankin score,and Barthel score were significantly improved compared with that before the treatment(P<0.05).In the control group,Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,the Rankin score,and Barthel score were significantly improved(P<0.05).(2)In the experimental group,the Rankin score,Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,and Barthel score were significantly better than the control group(P<0.05).?.The clinical efficacy evaluation results of The Third Rehabilitation Hospital1.Before treatment,NIHSS score,Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,the Rankin score,WOLF completion time,WOLF score,Ashworth score,Watian drinking water test and Barthel score were compared between the two groups before the treatment.The results were baseline balanced and comparable.2.The efficacy evaluation after 14 days of treatment:(1)In the experimental group,the comparison of NIHSS score,Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,the Rankin score,WOLF completion time,WOLF score,Barthel score,and Watian drinking water test were compared.The results showed that they were significantly improved compared with before the treatment(P<0.05);In the control group,the NIHSS score,Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,the Rankin score,the WOLF completion time,the WOLF score,the Barthel score and the Watian drinking water test was compared.The results showed that they were significantly improved compared with before treatment(P<0.05);(2)In the experimental group,the NIHSS score,Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,the Rankin score,the WOLF completion time,the WOLF score,and the Barthel score were compared.The results showed that they were significantly better than the control group(P<0.05).In the experimental group and the control group,Ashworth score and Watian drinking water test were not considered effective(P>0.05).There was no significant difference in Rankin score,Barthel score ?Ashworth score,Watian drinking water test between the two groups(P>0.05).3.Follow-up evaluation after 3 months :(1)Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,the Rankin score,and Barthel score were significantly improved compared with that before the treatment(P<0.05).In the control group,Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,the Rankin score,and Barthel score were significantly improved(P<0.05).(2)In the experimental group,the Rankin score,Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,and Barthel score were significantly better than the control group(P<0.05).?.The clinical efficacy evaluation results of Chongming Branch of Yueyang Hospital1.Before treatment,NIHSS score,Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,the Rankin score,WOLF completion time,WOLF score,Ashworth score,Watian drinking water test and Barthel score were compared between the two groups before the treatment.The results were baseline balanced and comparable.2.The efficacy evaluation after 14 days of treatment:(1)In the experimental group,the NIHSS score,Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,the Rankin score,the WOLF completion time,the WOLF score,and the Barthel score were compared.The results showed that they were significantly improved compared with before the treatment(P<0.05);In the control group,the NIHSS score,Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,the Rankin score,the WOLF completion time,and the WOLF score were compared.The results showed that they were significantly improved compared with before treatment(P<0.05);In the control group,the results of Watian drinking water test were not significantly different from those before treatment(P>0.05).(2)In the experimental group,the NIHSS score,the Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,the Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,the Fugl-Meyer total score,the WOLF completion time,the WOLF score,and the Barthel score were compared.The results showed that they were significantly better than the control group(P<0.05).In the experimental group and the control group,The Ashworth score was not considered effective(P>0.05).There was no significant difference in Rankin score,Ashworth score and the Barthel score between the two groups(P>0.05).3.Follow-up evaluation after 3 months :(1)Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,the Rankin score,and Barthel score were significantly improved compared with that before the treatment(P<0.05).In the control group,Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,the Rankin score,and Barthel score were significantly improved(P<0.05).(2)In the experimental group,Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lowerextremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,and the Rankin score were significantly better than the control group(P<0.05).There was no significant difference in the Rankin score and Barthel score between the experimental group and the control group(P>0.05).?.The clinical efficacy evaluation results of the multicenter clinical trial1.Before treatment,NIHSS score,Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,the Rankin score,WOLF completion time,WOLF score,Ashworth score,Watian drinking water test and Barthel score were compared between the two groups before the treatment.The results were baseline balanced and comparable.2.The efficacy evaluation after 14 days of treatment:(1)In the experimental group,the comparison of NIHSS score,Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,the Rankin score,WOLF completion time,WOLF score,Barthel score,and Watian drinking water test was compared.The results showed that they were significantly improved compared with before the treatment(P<0.05);In the control group,the NIHSS score,Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,the Rankin score,the Fugl-Meyer total score,the WOLF completion time,the WOLF score,and the Barthel score were compared.The results showed that they were significantly improved compared with before treatment(P<0.05);In the control group,the results of Watian drinking water test were not significantly different from those before treatment(P>0.05).(2)In the experimental group,the NIHSS score,Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,the Rankin score,the WOLF completion time,the WOLF score,and the Barthel score were compared.The results showed that they were significantly better than the control group(P<0.05).In the experimental group and the control group,the Ashworth score was not considered effective(P>0.05).There was no significant difference in the Ashworth score between the two groups(P>0.05).3.Follow-up evaluation after 3 months :(1)Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,the Rankin score,and Barthel score were significantly improved compared with that before the treatment(P<0.05).In the control group,the Rankin score,Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,and Barthel score were significantly improved(P<0.05).(2)In the experimental group,Fugl-Meyer upper extremity score,Fugl-Meyer lower extremity score,Fugl-Meyer total score,the Rankin score,and Barthel score were significantly better than the control group(P<0.05).Conclusion:1.During the treatment,both Rehabilitation with Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine's treatment scheme and modern rehabilitation scheme can improve neurological deficits,upper and lower extremity motor function,independence in patients with the convalescent stage of cerebral infarct.In addition,the Rehabilitation with Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine scheme had a dominant effect.2.In terms of long-term efficacy,both Rehabilitation with Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine scheme and modern rehabilitation scheme can improve upper and lower limb motor function,independence of patients with the convalescent stage of cerebral infarct.In addition,the Rehabilitation with Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine scheme had a dominant effect.3.In each sub-center,Rehabilitation with Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine treatment scheme can improve neurological deficits,upper and lower extremity motor function,independence in patients with the convalescent stage of cerebral infarct.The results suggested that the Rehabilitation with Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine scheme was effective in the treatment of the convalescent stage of cerebral infarct convalescent patients.At the same time,this treatment method was simple and feasible,with Chinese characteristics,so it was worth further promotion. |
PDF Full Text Request