胃肠舒片治疗骨科术后便秘的临床研究

目的:探讨胃肠舒片治疗骨科术后便秘的疗效。方法:共观察骨科术后便秘患者120例,随机分为两组,治疗组口服胃肠舒片,对照组口服复方芦荟胶囊,对比观察两组临床疗效、治疗前后便秘症状总积分和单项症状积分变化及药物毒副作用。结果:治疗组临床治愈率为60%,对照组为40%,治疗组治愈率显著高于对照组(P0.05),治疗后治疗组便秘主要症状总积分为2.22±0.97,明显低于对照组总积分3.18±1.08。治疗后治疗组便秘症状单项积分分别为:大便性状0.52±0.11,排便难度0.50±0.13,排便间隔时间0.48±0.09,每次排便时间0.47±0.04,排便不尽或肛门阻塞感0.25±0.06,对照组便秘症状单项积分分别为:大便性状0.71±0.13,排便难度0.84±0.22,排便间隔时间0.81±0.15,每次排便时间0.79±0.08,排便不尽或肛门阻塞感0.38±0.03,治疗组便秘症状各单项积分均显著低于对照组(P0.05),两组均未见明显毒副作用。结论:胃肠舒片治疗骨科术后便秘具有疗效好,无明显毒副作用的优势。     

黄白胶囊治疗实热证便秘的临床疗效观察

目的观察黄白胶囊治疗实热证便秘的临床疗效。方法将符合纳入标准的96例实热证便秘患者随机分为治疗组和对照组各48例。治疗组给予口服黄白胶囊4粒/次,每日3次;对照组给予口服聚乙二醇4000散10 g/次,每日2次。治疗5天,观察比较两组患者的治疗总有效率,治疗前、后的便秘症状评分情况。结果治疗组的总有效率为95.5%优于对照组的84.4%,两组比较差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。两组患者的便秘症状评分比较,治疗组优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论黄白胶囊能有效改善实热证便秘患者的排便性状,缩短排便时间,伴随症状也得到明显改善。     

麻仁润肠丸与穴位埋线联合治疗胃肠积热型便秘的临床研究

目的:观察穴位埋线联合麻仁润肠丸治疗胃肠积热型便秘的临床疗效,为临床推广提供理论基础。方法:选取2013年7月-2015年7月我院门诊收治的120例胃肠积热型便秘患者,按随机数字表分为联合组和对照组各60例。联合组给予麻仁润肠丸联合穴位埋线治疗,对照组单纯给予麻仁润肠丸治疗,疗程均为4周。观察两组治疗前后排便困难、Bristol评分、排便时间、排便次数及腹胀等便秘症状指标,比较两组疗效和不良反应。结果:治疗后联合组总有效率为93.33%,明显高于对照组的76.67%(P0.05);两组症状评分均较治疗前明显降低(P0.05),联合组各症状评分均低于对照组(P0.05),两组不良反应比较无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:穴位埋线联合麻仁润肠丸治疗胃肠积热型便秘能够明显改善大便性状,增加肠道的排便次数,降低排粪残留,疗效优于单纯药物治疗,值得临床推广使用。     

艾灸与中药灌肠联合治疗阿片类药源性便秘的效果观察

目的观察艾灸与中药灌肠联合治疗阿片类药物所致便秘的临床疗效。方法将我院收治的阿片类药物所致便秘患者86例,随机分为治疗组41例和对照组45例,对照组采用中药保留灌肠治疗及护理,治疗组在对照组的基础上加艾灸穴位进行治疗及护理,两组均治疗7天为1疗程,连续治疗2个疗程后,观察比较两组的治疗效果。结果经治疗后,两组患者的PAC-SYM总分和各维度评分均明显下降(P0.05),且治疗组的PAC-SYM总分和各维度评分均低于对照组(P0.05)。两组总有效率比较,治疗组为92.68%,对照组为84.44%,组间比较具统计学意义(P0.05)。结论艾灸与中药灌肠联合治疗阿片类药物所致便秘效果显著,具有临床推广应用价值。     

卯时穴位按摩加摩腹治疗胸腰椎骨折患者便秘的疗效观察

目的探讨卯时穴位按摩加摩腹对胸腰椎骨折后便秘患者的治疗效果。方法将随机抽取的胸腰椎骨折后发生便秘患者100例分为治疗组和对照组各50例。对照组采用常规骨科护理措施,如指导患者多饮水,多进食水果、蔬菜,必要时给予缓泻药、开塞露纳肛;观察组在对照组治疗基础上(除外给予缓泻药物、开塞露纳肛)每天于卯时饮温开水250ml,然后进行手阳明大肠经的穴位按摩并配合摩腹。观察两组患者便秘和相关症状发生率,并进行比较。结果治疗组有效率为96%,明显优于对照组的62%,而治疗组患者便秘和相关症状发生率均低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论卯时穴位按摩加摩腹治疗胸腰椎骨折后便秘的疗效较好,治愈率显著提高,是胸腰椎骨折后发生便秘的有效治疗措施。     

六磨汤加减治疗老年中风后遗症患者便秘的疗效观察

目的观察六磨汤加减治疗老年中风后遗症患者便秘的临床疗效。方法对62例老年中风后遗症便秘患者采用六磨汤加减辨证论治,并分析其疗效。结果显效38例,有效22例,无效2例,总有效率96.8%。结论六磨汤加减治疗老年中风后遗症患者便秘的疗效好。     

西甲硅油联合枯草杆菌肠球菌对肠易激综合征的疗效观察

目的:探讨西甲硅油乳剂联合枯草杆菌肠球菌二联活菌肠溶胶囊(美常安)在肠易激综合征(IBS)治疗中的临床效果。方法:将2014年1月至2015年10月收治的180例IBS患者随机分为西甲硅油乳剂联合枯草杆菌肠球菌二联活菌治疗组92例和单药枯草杆菌肠球菌二联活菌治疗对照组88例,治疗4周后随访观察两组患者的治疗总有效率、不同胃肠症状的治疗有效率,以及不同型IBS患者的胃肠症状评分。结果:IBS治疗组的治疗总有效率为88.0%,明显高于对照组70.5%(P0.05)。治疗4周后腹胀和排便次数改善的有效率分别为94.6%和78.3%明显高于对照组的77.3%和60.2%(P0.05),但两组在腹痛和排便性状改善方面比较无明显差异(P0.05)。对两组不同胃肠症状评分结果:显示同组同型IBS治疗4周后胃肠症状评分均明显低于治疗前(P0.05)治疗有效。但两组同型IBS患者的治疗后胃肠症状评分比较时,仅在便秘型IBS患者差异明显(P0.05)。结论:西甲硅油乳剂联合枯草杆菌二联活菌肠溶胶囊对肠易激综合征(IBS)患者治疗有效,对缓解腹胀和改善排便次数上治疗效果尤为明显,对IBS便秘型患者的胃肠症状恢复疗效最佳。     

阿奇霉素联合布地奈德治疗小儿支原体肺炎的临床疗效分析

目的探讨阿奇霉素联合布地奈德治疗小儿支原体肺炎的临床疗效。方法选取90例支原体肺炎患者,随机分为对照组和观察组(每组45例),两组均常规给予药物进行对症治疗,在此基础上,对照组采用阿奇霉素序贯疗法进行治疗,观察组采用阿奇霉素序贯疗法联用布地奈德混悬液雾化吸入治疗,两组均连续治疗14天,观察两组患者主要指标变化时间,临床疗效及不良反应等。结果治疗后,观察组的临床总有效率为95.6%,显著高于对照组的80.0%;观察组的体温复常时间、咳嗽消失时间、症状好转时间及住院时间分别为(2.1±0.9)、(10.1±2.3)、(6.9±1.6)和(12.1±2.4)天,对照组分别为(4.6±1.6)、(12.3±3.1)、(8.4±2.4)和(15.8±3.7)天,两组比较,差异均有统计学意义(P0.05);两组不良反应比较,差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论阿奇霉素联合布地奈德用于治疗小儿支原体肺炎,可显著缩短主要指标复常时间,提高临床疗效,且安全性较好。     

柴胡莪术汤配合针刺治疗肝癌介入术后顽固性呃逆的临床疗效

目的:观察柴胡莪术汤联合针刺治疗肝癌介入术后顽固性呃逆的疗效。方法:选择本院2013年1月-2014年1月收治肝癌介入术后发生顽固性呃逆的患者60例作为研究对象,按照数字随机法分为两组,对照组采取针刺太冲、足三里、内关及公孙穴位进行治疗,观察组在此基础上联合应用柴胡莪术汤进行治疗,疗程为10天,观察并比较两组患者的治疗总有效率和不良反应的发生情况。结果:观察组治愈19例(63.3%),显效7例(23.3%),有效3例(10.0%),治疗总有效率为96.7%;对照组治愈13例(43.3%),显效6例(20.0%),有效6例(20.0%),治疗总有效率为83.3%。观察组的临床疗效显著优于对照组,差异具有统计学意义(X2=7.95,P0.05)。两组患者治疗后的不良反应发生率无明显差异(P0.05)。结论:柴胡莪术汤配合针刺治疗肝癌介入术后顽固性呃逆疗效较佳,且不良反应少,较为安全,具有重要临床应用价值。     

中药离子导入肺腧与大肠腧治疗中风患者便秘的疗效

目的探讨中药离子导入肺腧与大肠腧治疗中风患者便秘的临床疗效。方法采用前瞻性临床随机对照试验的方法,选择中风便秘患者70例作为研究对象,按随机数字表法分为实验组和对照组各35例。实验组为中药离子导入组,对照组为常规治疗组,两组患者治疗15天后进行汉密尔顿抑郁量表评分(HAMD)、日常生活活动能力指标(ADL)、神经功能缺损评分(NIHSS)、便秘临床评分量表(CCS)疗效评定,并进行比较。结果治疗15天后,实验组的HAMD、ADL、NIHSS、CCS评分均明显优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(均P0.05)。结论中药离子导入肺腧与大肠腧治疗过程中患者感觉舒适,治疗效果好,是治疗中风后便秘的有效方法。     

On the origin of the Hirudinea and the demise of the Oligochaeta

The phylogenetic relationships of the Clitellata were investigated with a data set of published and new complete 18S rRNA gene sequences of 51 species representing 41 families. Sequences were aligned on the basis of a secondary structure model and analysed with maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood. In contrast to the latter method, parsimony did not recover the monophyly of Clitellata. However, a close scrutiny of the data suggested a spurious attraction between some polychaetes and clitellates. As a rule, molecular trees are closely aligned with morphology-based phylogenies. Acanthobdellida and Euhirudinea were reconciled in their traditional Hirudinea clade and were included in the Oligochaeta with the Branchiobdellida via the Lumbriculidae as a possible link between the two assemblages. While the 18S gene yielded a meaningful historical signal for determining relationships within clitellates, the exact position of Hirudinea and Branchiobdellida within oligochaetes remained unresolved. The lack of phylogenetic signal is interpreted as evidence for a rapid radiation of these taxa. The placement of Clitellata within the Polychaeta remained unresolved. The biological reality of polytomies within annelids is suggested and supports the hypothesis of an extremely ancient radiation of polychaetes and emergence of clitellates.     

On the ontogeny of the haptor and the evolution of the Monogenea

Data on the ontogeny of the posterior haptor of monogeneans were obtained from more than 150 publications and summarised. These data were plotted into diagrams showing evolutionary capacity levels based on the theory of a progressive evolution of marginal hooks, anchors and other attachment components of the posterior haptor in the Monogenea (Malmberg, 1986). 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks are assumed to be the most primitive monogenean haptoral condition. Thus the diagrams were founded on a 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hook evolutionary capacity level, and the evolutionary capacity levels of anchors and other haptoral attachement components were arranged according to haptoral ontogenetical sequences. In the final plotting diagram data on hosts, type of spermatozoa, oncomiracidial ciliation, sensilla pattern and protonephridial systems were also included. In this way a number of correlations were revealed. Thus, for example, the number of 5 + 5 marginal hooks correlates with the most primitive monogenean type of spermatozoon and with few sensillae, many ciliated cells and a simple protonephridial system in the oncomiracidium. On the basis of the reviewed data it is concluded that the ancient monogeneans with 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks were divided into two main lines, one retaining unhinged marginal hooks and the other evolving hinged marginal hooks. Both main lines have recent representatives at different marginal hook evolutionary capacity levels, i.e. monogeneans retaining a haptor with only marginal hooks. For the main line with hinged marginal hooks the name Articulon-choinea n. subclass is proposed. Members with 8 + 8 hinged marginal hooks only are here called Proanchorea n. superord. Monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks only are here called Ananchorea n. superord. and three new families are erected for its recent members: Anonchohapteridae n. fam., Acolpentronidae n. fam. and Anacanthoridae n. fam. (with 7 + 7, 8 + 8 and 9 + 9 unhinged marginal hooks, respectively). Except for the families of Articulonchoinea (e.g. Acanthocotylidae, Gyrodactylidae, Tetraonchoididae) Bychowsky's (1957) division of the Monogenea into the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea fits the proposed scheme, i.e. monogeneans with unhinged marginal hooks form one old group, the Oligonchoinea, which have 5 + 5 unhinged marginal hooks, and the other group form the Polyonchoinea, which (with the exception of the Hexabothriidae) has a greater number (7 + 7, 8 + 8 or 9 + 9) of unhinged marginal hooks. It is proposed that both these names, Oligonchoinea (sensu mihi) and Polyonchoinea (sensu mihi), will be retained on one side and Articulonchoinea placed on the other side, which reflects the early monogenean evolution. Except for the members of Ananchorea [Polyonchoinea], all members of the Oligonchoinea and Polyonchoinea have anchors, which imply that they are further evolved, i.e. have passed the 5 + 5 marginal hook evolutionary capacity level (Malmberg, 1986). There are two main types of anchors in the Monogenea: haptoral anchors, with anlages appearing in the haptor, and peduncular anchors, with anlages in the peduncle. There are two types of haptoral anchors: peripheral haptoral anchors, ontogenetically the oldest, and central haptoral anchors. Peduncular anchors, in turn, are ontogenetically younger than peripheral haptoral anchors. There may be two pairs of peduncular anchors: medial peduncular anchors, ontogentically the oldest, and lateral peduncular anchors. Only peduncular (not haptoral) anchors have anchor bars. Monogeneans with haptoral anchors are here called Mediohaptanchorea n. superord. and Laterohaptanchorea n. superord. or haptanchoreans. All oligonchoineans and the oldest polyonchoineans are haptanchoreans. Certain members of Calceostomatidae [Polyonchoinea] are the only monogeneans with both (peripheral) haptoral and peduncular anchors (one pair). These monogeneans are here called Mixanchorea n. superord. Polyonchoineans with peduncular anchors and unhinged marginal hooks are here called the Pedunculanchorea n. superord. The most primitive pedunculanchoreans have only one pair of peduncular anchors with an anchor bar, while the most advanced have both medial and lateral peduncular anchors; each pair having an anchor bar. Certain families of the Articulonchoinea, the Anchorea n. superord., also have peduncular anchors (parallel evolution): only one family, the Sundanonchidae n. fam., has both medial and lateral peduncular anchors, each anchor pair with an anchor bar. Evolutionary lines from different monogenean evolutionary capacity levels are discussed and a new system of classification for the Monogenea is proposed.In agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. EditorIn agreeing to publish this article, I recognise that its contents are controversial and contrary to generally accepted views on monogenean systematics and evolution. I have anticipated a reaction to the article by inviting senior workers in the field to comment upon it: their views will be reported in a future issue of this journal. Editor