摘要目的：评价针刺蝶腭神经节治疗中重度持续性变应性鼻炎的临床疗效。方法本研究为非随机对照研究。将符合纳入标准的患者按就诊顺序以1∶1比例分为2组，每组25例。针刺蝶腭神经节组采用毫针刺激蝶腭神经节，1～2次/周；常规针刺组采用传统针刺方法，以迎香、印堂、风池、风府、足三里等为主穴，以上星、合谷、禾髎、肺俞、脾俞、肾俞、三阴交等为配穴，每次取主穴、配穴各1～2穴，2次/周。2组均连续治疗4周。采用鼻炎症状总分量表(2004版)、鼻炎症状总分量表(total nasal symptom score, TNSS)、鼻炎伴随症状总分量表(total non-nasal symptom score, TNNSS)评价症状改善情况；采用鼻结膜炎生活质量量表(rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire, RQLQ)评价生活质量；比较2组患者针刺起效时间、疗效持续时间，以及治疗后1个月复发天数。结果针刺蝶腭神经节组治疗后鼻炎症状总分[(99.74±31.89)分比(196.83±31.22)，t＝-4.912]、TNSS[(165.18±51.06)分比(209.37±53.31)分，t＝-4.032]、TNNSS[(33.63±12.37)分比(71.82±19.21)，t＝-3.463]均明显低于常规针刺组(P 均＜0.05)。与常规针刺组比较，针刺蝶腭神经节组针刺后症状改善起效时间[(13.85±4.21)min 比(45.63±7.87)min；t＝-1.763,P＝0.008]更短，而疗效持续时间[(37.92±9.94)h 比(3.35±1.23)h；t＝7.637,P＜0.01]更长。针刺蝶腭神经节组治疗后4周RQLQ评分[(8.48±3.71)分比(37.68±12.46)分，F＝-7.312]低于常规针刺组(P＜0.01)。治疗后1个月针刺蝶腭神经节组复发天数[(4.12±2.15)d 比(23.53±4.63)d，t＝-8.879]明显少于常规针刺组(P＜0.01)。结论针刺蝶腭神经节治疗中重度持续性变应性鼻炎优于传统针刺方法。

abstractsObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation with acupuncture for moderate-to-severe perennial allergic rhinitis.MethodsA total of 50 patients were recruited into a sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation group and a routine acupuncture group according to order of presentation, with 25 in each group. The sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation group received sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation with filiform needle, 1-2 sessions/week for 4 weeks. The routine acupuncture group received traditional acupuncture, withyingxiang(LI 20),yintang(GV29),fengchi(GB20),fengfu(GB16),zusanli(ST36) as the maln points, andyingxiang(LI 20),yintang(GV29),fengchi(GB20),fengfu(GB16),zusanli(ST36) as the adjunct points, 1-2 points from both the maln and adjunct points in each session, 2 sessions/week for 4 weeks. The nasal symptom score (2004 version), the total nasal symptom score (TNSS) and the total non-nasal symptom score (TNNSS) were used to evaluate symptom improvement. The Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnalre (RQLQ) was used to assess the patients’ quality of life. The time to symptom alleviation, duration of symptom alleviation in every session and the recurrence duration during 1 month after the treatment were compared between the two groups.Results After the treatment, the score of the nasal symptom score (99.74 ± 31.89vs.196.83 ± 31.22;t=-4.912,P=0.001), TNSS (33.63 ± 12.37vs.71.82 ± 19.21;t=-3.463,P=0.003), TNNSS (33.63 ± 12.37vs.71.82 ± 19.21,t=-3.463,P=0.003) in the sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation were significant lower than those in the routine acupuncture group. Compared with the routine acupuncture group, the time to symptom alleviation was significant shorter (13.85 ± 4.21 minvs.45.63 ± 7.87 min;t=-1.763,P=0.008), while the duration of symptom alleviation was significant longer (37.92 ± 9.94 hvs.3.35 ± 1.23 h;t=7.637,P<0.01) after each session in the sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation group. Four weeks after the treatment, RQLQ score in the sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation group was significant lower than that in the routine acupuncture group (8.48 ± 3.71vs.37.68 ± 12.46;F=-7.312,P<0.01). The recurrence duration during 1 month after the treatment in the sphenopalatine ganglion stimulation group was significant longer than that in the routine acupuncture group (4.12 ± 2.15 dvs.23.53 ± 4.63 d;t=-8.879,P=0.003).ConclusionSphenopalatine Ganglion stimulation is superior to routine acupuncture in treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe perennial allergic rhinitis.