Ãé°ü °á¼® Ä¡·á¿¡¼­ Pethidine Á¤ÁÖÇÏ¿¡ ¼öÀÏ ¿¬¼Ó ½ÃÇàµÈ ü¿ÜÃæ°ÝÆÄ¼â¼®¼úÀÇ ¾ÈÁ¤¼º°ú È¿¿ë¼º
Safety and Effectiveness of Successive Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Pancreatolithiasis under Intravenous Bolus Pethidine Administration Alone

´ëÇѼÒÈ­±âÇÐȸÁö 2014³â 63±Ç 4È£ p.231 ~ p.238

À̺´¿í(Lee Byung-Uk) - ¿ï»ê´ëÇб³ Àǰú´ëÇÐ ¿ï»ê´ëÇб³º´¿ø ¼ÒÈ­±â³»°ú
±è¸íȯ(Kim Myung-Hwan) - ¿ï»ê´ëÇб³ Àǰú´ëÇÐ ¼­¿ï¾Æ»êº´¿ø ¼ÒÈ­±â³»°ú
ÃÖÁØÇõ(Choi Jun-Hyuk) - ¿ï»ê´ëÇб³ Àǰú´ëÇÐ ¼­¿ï¾Æ»êº´¿ø ¼ÒÈ­±â³»°ú
±èÈ¿Á¤(Kim Hyo-Jung) - ¿ï»ê´ëÇб³ Àǰú´ëÇÐ ¼­¿ï¾Æ»êº´¿ø ¼ÒÈ­±â³»°ú
¹ÚµµÇö(Park Do-Hyun) - ¿ï»ê´ëÇб³ Àǰú´ëÇÐ ¼­¿ï¾Æ»êº´¿ø ¼ÒÈ­±â³»°ú
ÀÌ»ó¼ö(Lee Sang-Soo) - ¿ï»ê´ëÇб³ Àǰú´ëÇÐ ¼­¿ï¾Æ»êº´¿ø ¼ÒÈ­±â³»°úÇб³½Ç
¼­µ¿¿Ï(Seo Dong-Wan) - ¿ï»ê´ëÇб³ Àǰú´ëÇÐ ¼­¿ï¾Æ»êº´¿ø ¼ÒÈ­±â³»°úÇб³½Ç
À̼º±¸(Lee Sung-Koo) - ¿ï»ê´ëÇб³ Àǰú´ëÇÐ ¼­¿ï¾Æ»êº´¿ø ¼ÒÈ­±â³»°úÇб³½Ç

Abstract

¸ñÀû: Ãé°ü °á¼® Ä¡·á¿¡ ÀÖ¾î ÆäÄ¡µò Á¤ÁÖÇÏ¿¡ ¼öÀÏ ¿¬¼Ó ½ÃÇà µÈ Ã¼¿ÜÃæ°ÝÆÄ¼â¼®¼úÀÇ ¾ÈÁ¤¼º°ú È¿¿ë¼º¿¡ ´ëÇØ ¾Ë¾Æº¸°íÀÚ ÇÏ¿´´Ù.

´ë»ó ¹× ¹æ¹ý: ¼­¿ï¾Æ»êº´¿ø¿¡¼­ º¹ºÎ ÅëÁõÀ» µ¿¹ÝÇÑ 5 mm ÀÌ»ó Å©±âÀÇ ¼®È¸È­µÈ Ãé¼®À» ü¿ÜÃæ°ÝÆÄ¼â¼®¼ú°ú ³»½Ã°æ¿ª Çà´ãÃé°üÁ¶¿µ¼úÀ» ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© Ä¡·áÇÑ 90¸íÀÇ È¯ÀÚ¸¦ ´ë»óÀ¸·Î ¾ÈÀü¼º, È¿¿ë¼º, ÇÕº´ÁõÀ» ÈÄÇâÀûÀ¸·Î ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù.

°á°ú: Æò±Õ 12.8 kVÀÇ ¿¡³ÊÁö·Î 1ȸ ½Ã¼ú´ç 2,984ȸÀÇ Ãæ°ÝÆÄ ¸¦ ¹ß»çÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç ȯÀÚ 1ÀÎ´ç Æò±Õ 4.2ȸÀÇ ESWLÀÌ ½ÃÇàµÇ¾ú ´Ù. 84¸íÀÇ È¯ÀÚ¿¡¼­ 3ÀÏ ÀÌ»ó ¿¬¼ÓÀ¸·Î ESWLÀÌ ½ÃÇàµÇ¾ú °í, Ãé¼®ÀÇ ºÐ¼â´Â 83¸í(92.2%)¿¡¼­ ÀÌ·ç¾îÁ³´Ù. 54¸í(60%) ¿¡¼­ Ãé¼®ÀÌ ¿ÏÀü Á¦°ÅµÇ¾ú°í, 27¸í(30%)¿¡¼­´Â ºÎºÐ Á¦°ÅµÇ ¾ú´Ù. ESWL 1ȸ ½Ã¼ú´ç »ç¿ëµÈ ÆäÄ¡µòÀº Æò±Õ 53.5 mgÀ̾ú ´Ù. ESWL¿¡ °ü·ÃÇÏ¿© ÃÑ 4¸í¿¡¼­ ±Þ¼º ÃéÀå¿°ÀÌ ¹ß»ýÇÏ¿´´Ù.

°á·Ð: Ãé°ü °á¼®ÀÇ Ä¡·á¿¡ À־ ÆäÄ¡µò Á¤ÁÖ¸¸À¸·Î ¼öÀÏ ¿¬ ¼Ó ESWLÀ» ½ÃÇàÇÏ°í ³»½Ã°æ Ä¡·á¿Í º´ÇÕÇÏ´Â ¹æ¹ýÀº °á¼® Á¦°Å ¼ºÀûÀ» À¯ÀÇÇÏ°Ô Çâ»ó½Ãų ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ¾ÈÀüÇÏ°í ½Ç¿ëÀûÀÎ Ä¡·á ¼ö´ÜÀÌ´Ù.
Background/Aims: A retrospective analysis was performed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for pancreatolithiasis on successive days under intravenous bolus of pethidine alone.

Methods: Ninety patients with calcified pancreatic stones (¡Ã5 mm) presenting with abdominal pain were selected for ESWL. ESWL was performed with an electroconductive lithotripter under fluoroscopic target systems. Fragmented calculi after ESWL were removed by endotherapy.

Results: A mean of 4.2 ESWL sessions were performed for each patient, with a mean of 2,984 shocks at a mean power setting of 12.8 kV. Eighty-four (89.3%) patients underwent ESWL for three or more days in a row. Fragmentation of the stones were achieved in 83/90 (92.2%) patients. Complete clearance of the main pancreatic duct was achieved in 54/90 (60.0%) patients, and partial clearance was achieved in 27 (30.0%) patients. The mean dose of pethidine used during ESWL was 53.5¡¾20.7 mg per session. As ESWL-related complications, four (4.3%) patients developed mild acute pancreatitis.

Conclusions: In case of endoscopically difficult-to-treat pancreatic duct stones, combined therapy with ESWL is an effective method, and treatment with multiple sessions of ESWL on successive days under intravenous bolus of pethidine alone is safe and well tolerated.

Ű¿öµå

°á¼®, Ãé°ü, ü¿ÜÃæ°ÝÆÄ¼â¼®¼ú
Calculi, Pancreatic ducts, Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy
¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸
µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸
MEDLINE 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)
Ű¿öµå(Keyword)
À¯È¿¼º°á°ú(Recomendation)
¿¬±¸ºñÁö¿ø(Fund Source)
±Ù°Å¼öÁØÆò°¡(Evidence Hierarchy)
ÃâÆÇ³âµµ(Year)
Âü¿©ÀúÀÚ¼ö(Authors)
´ëÇ¥ÀúÀÚ
DOI
KCDÄÚµå
ICD 03
°Ç°­º¸ÇèÄÚµå