标题：深部肌肉刺激结合生物反馈治疗产后盆底肌筋膜痛综合征疗效观察

      作者：李莉，张阳，李学春，谢诚芳，阳恩香    长沙市第四医院(湖南师范大学附属长沙医院)妇产科，湖南 长沙 410006

      卷次： 2019年30卷8期

      【摘要】 目的 评估深部肌肉刺激结合生物反馈治疗产后盆底肌筋膜痛综合征(MPPS)的临床疗效。方法 收集2015年3月至2018年2月在长沙市第四医院诊断为产后MPPS患者160例，给予深部肌肉刺激联合生物反馈治疗共15次，评估患者治疗前后的主观疼痛感觉VAS评分和盆底肌肉压痛VAS评分，并采用Glazer评估盆底肌电的变化。结果 患者治疗前、后主观疼痛感觉VAS评分分别为(5.83±1.43)分、(2.72±1.36)分，治疗前、后盆底肌筋膜压痛VAS评分分别为(7.81±1.62)分、(3.80±1.42)分，治疗后的主观疼痛感觉VAS评分、盆底肌肉压痛VAS评分较治疗前明显下降，差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)；患者治疗前的前静息电位和后静息电位分别为(5.90±3.09) μV、(5.35±2.55) μV，治疗后分别为(2.90±1.59) μV、(3.92±2.12) μV，均有明显下降，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)；治疗前，快速收缩、10 s快速收缩、60 s耐力收缩的电位分别为(38.90±11.56) μV、(18.98±8.95) μV、(15.20±7.10) μV，治疗后则分别为(50.20±15.63) μV、(30.62±15.03) μV、(24.56±9.09) μV，快速收缩、10 s快速收缩、60 s耐久收缩的肌电波幅均有上升，差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 深部肌肉刺激结合生物反馈是治疗产后MPPS的有效方法。
      【关键词】 盆底肌筋膜痛；生物反馈治疗；深部肌肉刺激；盆底表面肌电；Glazer评估；疗效
      【中图分类号】 R714.69 【文献标识码】 A 【文章编号】 1003—6350（2019）08—1017—04

Clinical efficacy of deep muscle stimulation combined with biofeedback in the treatment of postpartummyofascial pelvic pain syndrome.
LI Li, ZHANG Yang, LI Xue-chun, XIE Cheng-fang, YANG En-xiang. Department ofGynaecology and Obstetrics, the Fourth Hospital of Changsha (Affiliated Hospital of Hunan Normal University), Changsha410006, Hunan, CHINA
【Abstract】 Objective To evaluate the clinical efficacy of deep muscle stimulation combined with biofeedbacktherapy for postpartum myofascial pelvic pain syndrome (MPPS). Methods A total of 160 patients of postpartumMPPS were collected from the Fourth Hospital of Changsha from March 2015 to February 2018, which were treated bydeep muscle stimulation combined with biofeedback therapy for 15 times. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores ofsubjective pain sensation, VAS scores of pelvic floor muscle tenderness, and Glazer evaluation of pelvic floor electromy-ography changes were compared and analyzed before and after treatment. Results The VAS scores of subjective painsensation before and after treatment were 5.83±1.43 and 2.72±1.36, and VAS scores of pelvic floor muscle tenderness be-fore and after treatment were 7.81±1.62 and 3.80±1.42; the scores of after treatment were significantly lower than thosebefore treatment (P<0.05). After treatment, the pre-resting potential was (2.90±1.59) μV and the post-resting potentialwas (3.92±2.12) μV, which were significantly lower than (5.90±3.09) uV and (5.35±2.55) μV before treatment (P<0.05).After treatment, the potential of rapid contraction, 10 s rapid contraction, and 60 s endurance contraction were (50.20±