|
| 穴位埋线对老年性骨质疏松小鼠骨密度及骨生物力学 的影响 |
| Effects of catgut implantation at acupuncture points on bone mineral density and bone biomechanics in senile osteoporotic mice |
| |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 老年性骨质疏松 SAMP6 ； SAMR1 ；骨密度；骨生物力学 |
| 英文关键词: |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 931 |
| 全文下载次数: 906 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的本研究旨在分析穴位埋线对老年性骨质疏松小鼠（SAMP6)骨密度和骨生物力学性能的影响，进而探讨该类方 法对于防治老年性骨质疏松症的作用效果。方法选取3月龄快速老化模型SAMP6小鼠共40只随机分为对照组1月组（C1 组）10只、对照组2月组（C2组）10只、埋线1月组（埋1组）10只和埋线2月组（埋2组）10只。选同龄SAMR1小鼠20只作 为正常老化同源对照组，即R1 1月组（R1组）、R1 2月组（R2组）各10只。选取双侧“肾俞”和“足三里”每两周进行一次穴 位埋线，分别于1月后、2月后将小鼠摘眼球取血处死，取双侧股骨，进行骨密度及骨生物力学检测。结果1埋2组小鼠股骨 密度均显著髙于C2组;R2组显著低于R1组，显著髙于C2组。2小鼠股骨弯曲（断裂）强度：与C1组相比，R1组和埋1组小 鼠股骨弯曲（断裂）强度显著增髙;与C2组相比，R2组和埋2组显著增髙;埋2组显著髙于埋1组。小鼠股骨最大载荷:埋1 组和埋2组小鼠股骨最大载荷显著髙于C1组和C2组。小鼠股骨弹性模量:埋1组和埋2组小鼠股骨弹性模量均显著髙于 C1组和C2组;与R1组和R2组无差异。小鼠股骨横断面积:与R1组相比，R2组小鼠股骨横断面积显著性低下;埋1组显著 髙于埋2组。结论“肾俞”和“足三里”穴位埋线对老年性骨质疏松症骨密度和生物力学性能有积极作用。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To analysis the effect of catgut implantation at acupuncture points on bone mineral density and bone biomechanics in senile osteoporosis mice (SAMP6)，and to explore the mechanism of preventing and treating senile osteoporosis. Methods Forty senescence accelerated mice (SAMP6) were randomly divided into 4 groups，including 10 in control group 1 (C1)，10 in control group 2 (C2)，10 in catgut implantation for 1 month group 1 (M1)，and 10 in catgut implantation for 2 months group 2 ( M2 ) . Twenty normal senescence mouse ( SAMP1 ) with the same age were selected as homologous control groups: 10 in 1 month group (R1)，and 10 in 2 months (R2). The implantation mice were undertaken bilateral “ Shenshu“ and “ Zusanli” catgut implantation once in 2 weeks. The mice were executed after eyeball blood collecting in 1 month and 2 months， respectively. The bilateral femurs were collected for the bone mineral density and bone biomechanical detection. Results 1) BMD of the femurs was significantly higher in group M2 than that in group C2，lower in group R2 than group R1，but significantly higher than in group C2. 2) The bone bending intensity showed that the femur bending strength in group R1 and M1 was significantly higher than that in group C1，group R2 and M2 were higher than group C2，and group M2 was higher than group M1. The maximal loading in group M1 and M2 was higher than that in group C1 and C2. The elastic modulus in group M1 and M2 was |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |