《中国康复理论与实践》

《中国康复理论与实践》 ›› 2011, Vol. 17 ›› Issue (6): 527-530.

• 论文 • 上一篇    下一篇

记忆障碍康复训练的疗效研究

高明明1,2，恽晓平1,2，张慧丽1,2，郭华珍1,2，张新1,2，牛秀莲3，祁欣4，乔颖欣5，
王建文6，关晨霞7，李芙英8，任海9，刘野10，路亚娟11，徐宝华12，周若薇13   

  1. 1.首都医科大学康复医学院，北京市 100068；2. 中国康复研究中心北京博爱医院康复评定科，北京市 100068；3. 上海市残疾人康复职业培训中心，上海市 200127；4. 浙江省残疾人康复指导中心，浙江杭州市 310012；5.黑龙江省海员总医院康复科，黑龙江哈尔滨市 150020；6. 甘肃省康复中心，甘肃兰州市 730000；7. 河南省郑州大学第五附属医院康复科，河南郑州市 450052；8. 天津市北辰中医医院，天津市 300400；9. 山西省康复中心，山西太原市 030012；10. 山东省青岛市阜外医院康复科，山东青岛市 266034；11. 河南平顶山煤业集团总医院神经内科，河南平顶山市 467000；12. 北京四季青医院康复科，北京市 100097；13. 英智康复医院，北京市 100025。
  • 收稿日期:2011-06-07 修回日期:1900-01-01 出版日期:2011-06-25 发布日期:2011-06-25
  • 通讯作者: 恽晓平

Efficacy of Rehabilitation on Memory Disorders

GAO Ming-ming, YUN Xiao-ping, ZHANG Hui-li, et al.   

  1. Capital Medical University School of Rehabilitation Medicine, Department of Rehabilitation Evaluation, Beijing Charity Hospital, China Rehabilitation Research Center,Beijing 100068, China
  • Received:2011-06-07 Revised:1900-01-01 Published:2011-06-25 Online:2011-06-25

PDF (PC)

摘要： 目的研究记忆障碍康复训练的疗效，比较不同训练模式的疗效及优缺点，对可能影响疗效的因素进行分析。方法将全国12 家综合医院和专业康复机构144 例记忆障碍患者分为仪器训练组、人工训练组和对照组。仪器和人工训练组患者进行以记忆为主的认知康复训练，1次/d，30 min/次，分别治疗6 周和12 周；对照组不参加训练。对训练前后的瞬时、短时和长时记忆进行评定；比较仪器训练组、人工训练组及对照组训练前后组内及组间成绩；并对性别、年龄、受教育年限、病程、损伤部位及昏迷时间对疗效的影响进行分析。结果仪器训练组及人工训练组6 周、12 周成绩均较初评显著提高(P<0.001)，并均明显高于对照组(P<0.01)；仪器训练组成绩明显高于人工训练组(P<0.01)；年龄与疗效呈负相关。结论记忆障碍康复的疗效显著；12 周的康复训练可使患者的记忆功能显著提高；采用认知康复专业仪器进行认知训练模式的疗效明显优于人工训练模式，应予以普及推广。

关键词: 记忆障碍, 计算机辅助认知康复训练, 脑损伤

Abstract: Objective To investigate the effect of rehabilitation on memory deficits after acquired brain injury, to compare different training models of memory rehabilitation and to analyze the possible factors affecting memory rehabilitation. Methods 144 patients with acquired brain injury following memory deficits were randomly assigned to computer-assisted training group, face-to-face training group and control group. Both training groups were given memory-based cognitive training program once a day which sustained 30 minutes for 6 or 12 weeks. The instantaneous memory, short-term memory and long-term memory were evaluated and compared before and after training. The effect of gender, age, education, course, site of injury and coma time on training efficacy were analyszed as well. Results 6 weeks and 12 weeks at training, both computer-assisted and face-to-face training groups showed a significant improvement in memory abilities when compared to controls (P<0.01), with the former making more progress (P<0.01). Negative correlation was found between age and memory performance. Conclusion Effectiveness of memory rehabilitation is proven. 12 weeks training can significantly improve memory. Cognitive training using professional equipment is significantly more effective than the face-to-face training and should be recommended.

Key words: memory deficits, computer-assisted cognitive rehabilitation, acquired brain injury