¼ÒÀåÁúȯÀÌ ÀǽɵǴ ȯÀÚ¿¡¼­ ÀÌÁßdz¼± ¼ÒÀå³»½Ã°æ°Ë»ç¿Í ĸ½¶³»½Ã°æ°Ë»çÀÇ ºñ±³
Comparison of Double Balloon Enteroscopy and Capsule Endoscopy for Patients with Suspected Small Bowel Diseases

´ëÇѼÒÈ­±â³»½Ã°æÇÐȸÁö 2007³â 35±Ç 6È£ p.379 ~ p.384

ÀåÇöÁÖ(Jang Hyun-Joo) - ÇѸ²´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ³»°úÇб³½Ç
¹ÚöÈñ(Park Cheol-Hee) - ÇѸ²´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ³»°úÇб³½Ç
Çѽ¿ë(Han Seung-Yong) - ÇѸ²´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ³»°úÇб³½Ç
º¯Çö¿ì(Byun Hyeon-Woo) - ÇѸ²´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ³»°úÇб³½Ç
ÃÖ¹ÎÈ£(Choi Min-Ho) - ÇѸ²´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ³»°úÇб³½Ç
°è¼¼Çù(Kae Sea-Hyub) - ÇѸ²´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ³»°úÇб³½Ç
ÀÌÁø(Lee Jin) - ÇѸ²´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ³»°úÇб³½Ç

Abstract

¸ñÀû: ÀÌÁßdz¼± ¼ÒÀå³»½Ã°æ°ú ĸ½¶³»½Ã°æÀÌ µµÀԵǸ鼭 Àüü ¼ÒÀåÀ» °üÂûÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ°Ô µÇ¾ú´Ù. º» ¿¬±¸´Â ¼ÒÀåÁúȯÀÌ ÀǽɵǴ ȯÀÚ¸¦ ´ë»óÀ¸·Î ÀÌÁßdz¼± ¼ÒÀå³»½Ã°æ°Ë»ç¿Í ĸ½¶³»½Ã°æ°Ë»çÀÇ Áø´ÜÀ² ¹× ÀÓ»óÀû À¯¿ë¼º¿¡ ´ëÇØ ºñ±³ ¿¬±¸ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ´ë»ó ¹×
¹æ¹ý: 2003³â 5¿ùºÎÅÍ 2005³â 7¿ù±îÁö ¿øÀÎ ºÒ¸íÀÇ ¼ÒÈ­°ü ÃâÇ÷, ¸¸¼ºº¹Åë, ¸¸¼º ¼³»ç, ¿°Áõ¼º ¼ÒÀå Áúȯ, Á¾¾ç µî ¿©·¯ ¼ÒÀå ÁúȯÀÌ ÀǽɵǾî ĸ½¶³»½Ã°æ°Ë»ç¸¦ ½ÃÇàÇÑ 35¸í°ú ÀÌÁßdz¼± ¼ÒÀå³»½Ã°æ°Ë»ç¸¦ ½ÃÇàÇÑ È¯ÀÚ 25¸íÀ» ´ë»óÀ¸·Î ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¾ç ±ºÀÇ ÀÓ»óÀû Ư¼º, Áø´ÜÀ², Ä¡·á¿¡ ¹ÌÄ£¿µÇâ µîÀ» ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù.

°á°ú: ÀÌÁßdz¼± ¼ÒÀå³»½Ã°æ°Ë»çÀÇ Áø´ÜÀ²Àº 80% (20/25), ĸ½¶³»½Ã°æ°Ë»ç´Â 65.7% (23/35)·Î À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ¾ø¾úÀ¸³ª(p=0.226), ÀÌÁßdz¼± ¼ÒÀå³»½Ã°æ°Ë»çÀÇ Áø´ÜÀ²ÀÌ ´Ù¼Ò ³ôÀº °æÇâÀ̾ú´Ù. ÀÌÁßdz¼± ¼ÒÀå³»½Ã°æ °Ë»ç ȯÀÚ±ºÀº ³»½Ã°æ ½Ã¼ú·Î Ä¡·áÇÏ¿´´ø ¿¹°¡ 4¸í(16%), ¾à¹° Ä¡·á 4¸í(16%), ¼ö¼ú 10¸í(40%), ´Ü¼ø °üÂû 7¸í(28%)À̾ú°í, ĸ½¶³»½Ã°æ °Ë»ç ȯÀÚ±ºÀº ¼ö¼ú 2¸í(6%), ¾à¹° Ä¡·á 5¸í(14%), ´Ü¼ø °üÂû 28¸í(80%)À¸·Î¼­ ÀÌÁßdz¼± ¼ÒÀå³»½Ã°æ°Ë»ç ±º¿¡¼­ ¹ß°ßÇÑ º´º¯¿¡ ´ëÇÏ¿© ¼ö¼úÀ̳ª ³»½Ã°æ ½Ã¼ú µî Àû±ØÀûÀÎ Ä¡·á¸¦ ÇÑ ¿¹°¡ ´õ ¸¹¾Ò´Ù(Table 72% vs. 20%, p£¼0.01).

°á·Ð: ¼ÒÀåÁúȯÀÌ ÀǽɵǴ ȯÀÚ¿¡¼­ ÀÌÁßdz¼± ¼ÒÀå³»½Ã°æ°Ë»ç¿Í ĸ½¶³»½Ã°æ°Ë»çÀÇ Àüü Áø´ÜÀ²Àº ºñ½ÁÇÏ¿´Áö¸¸ Ä¡·á °áÁ¤¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâÀº ÀÌÁßdz¼± ¼ÒÀå³»½Ã°æ °Ë»ç°¡ ´õ Å« °ÍÀ¸·Î ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù.
Background/Aims: Double balloon enteroscopy (DBE) and capsule endoscopy (CE) are two new methods for
evaluating small bowel diseases. However, the clinical relevance of these procedures remains to be uncovered. We investigated the diagnostic and therapeutic impact of DBE and CE for patients with suspected small bowel diseases.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 60 patients who were examined by DBE or CE for
suspected small bowel diseases between May 2003 and September 2005. The diagnostic yield and therapeutic impact were compared between the two groups.

Results:Thirty-five patients were examined by CE and 25 patients were examined by DBE. DBE showed abnormal findings in 20 patients (80%). CE detected abnormal findings in 23 patients (65.7%). The overall diagnostic yield was not different between the two groups (p=0.226). In the DBE group, therapeutic interventions were performed in 18
patients (72%). In the CE group, therapeutic interventions were performed in 7 patients (20%). The overall therapeutic
impact showed a significant difference between the two procedures (p<0.001).

Conclusions: Although there is no significant difference in the diagnostic yield between the two procedures, DBE appears to have a higher therapeutic yield than CE for patients with suspected small bowel diseases.

Å°¿öµå

ÀÌÁßdz¼± ¼ÒÀå³»½Ã°æ°Ë»ç, ĸ½¶³»½Ã°æ°Ë»ç, ¼ÒÀå
Double balloon enteroscopy, Capsule endoscopy, Small intestine
¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸
µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸
ÇмúÁøÈïÀç´Ü(KCI) KoreaMed ´ëÇÑÀÇÇÐȸ ȸ¿ø 
ÁÖÁ¦ÄÚµå
ÁÖÁ¦¸í(Target field)
¿¬±¸´ë»ó(Population)
¿¬±¸Âü¿©(Sample size)
´ë»ó¼ºº°(Gender)
Áúº´Æ¯¼º(Condition Category)
¿¬±¸È¯°æ(Setting)
¿¬±¸¼³°è(Study Design)
¿¬±¸±â°£(Period)
ÁßÀç¹æ¹ý(Intervention Type)
ÁßÀç¸íĪ(Intervention Name)
Å°¿öµå(Keyword)
À¯È¿¼º°á°ú(Recomendation)
The overall diagnostic yield was not different between the two groups (p=0.226); DBE appears to have a higher therapeutic yield than CE for patients with suspected small bowel diseases.
¿¬±¸ºñÁö¿ø(Fund Source)
±Ù°Å¼öÁØÆò°¡(Evidence Hierarchy)
ÃâÆdz⵵(Year)
Âü¿©ÀúÀÚ¼ö(Authors)
´ëÇ¥ÀúÀÚ
DOI
KCDÄÚµå
ICD 03
°Ç°­º¸ÇèÄÚµå