´ÜÀÏ Ç÷¾×Åõ¼® ±â°ü¿¡¼ Buttonhole õÀÚÀÇ °æÇè
Clinical Experience with Buttonhole Needling in a Single Hemodialysis Center
´ëÇѳ»°úÇÐȸÁö 2014³â 87±Ç 5È£ p.574 ~ p.578
ÃÖ¼öÁ¤(Choi Soo-Jeong) - ¼øÃµÇâ´ëÇб³ Àǰú´ëÇÐ ³»°úÇб³½Ç
Á¶ÀºÈñ(Cho Eun-Hee) - ¼øÃµÇâ´ëÇб³ ºÎõº´¿ø Àΰø½ÅÀå½Ç
À̼³Çü(Lee Seol-Hyoung) - ¼øÃµÇâ´ëÇб³ ºÎõº´¿ø Àΰø½ÅÀå½Ç
¿ÀÇý¶õ(Oh Hye-Ran) - ¼øÃµÇâ´ëÇб³ ºÎõº´¿ø Àΰø½ÅÀå½Ç
±èÁ¾Çý(Kim Jong-Hye) - ¼øÃµÇâ´ëÇб³ ºÎõº´¿ø Àΰø½ÅÀå½Ç
¹Ú¹«¿ë(Park Moo-Yong) - ¼øÃµÇâ´ëÇб³ Àǰú´ëÇÐ ³»°úÇб³½Ç
±èÁø±¹(Kim Jin-Kuk) - ¼øÃµÇâ´ëÇб³ Àǰú´ëÇÐ ³»°úÇб³½Ç
Ȳ½Â´ö(Hwang Seung-Duk) - ¼øÃµÇâ´ëÇб³ Àǰú´ëÇÐ ³»°úÇб³½Ç
Abstract
¸ñÀû: Buttonhole õÀÚ´Â Ç÷¾×Åõ¼® ½Ã¿¡ °°Àº ºÎÀ§¸¦ õÀÚÇØ õÀÚ°¡ ½±°í, ÅëÁõÀÌ ÀûÀ¸¸ç, ÁöÇ÷ÀÌ ºü¸¥ ÀåÁ¡µéÀÌ ÀÖ¾î ±¹³»¿¡¼± ÃÖ±Ù¿¡ ÀúÀڵ鿡 ÀÇÇØ ¼Ò°³µÇ¾ú´Ù.
¹æ¹ý: 2011³â 7¿ùºÎÅÍ 12¿ù±îÁö buttonholeÀ» ¸¸µé°í 2013³â 2¿ù±îÁöÀÇ buttonhole õÀÚ¸¦ ¹Þ¾Ò´ø ȯÀÚ¿¡°Ô¼ °¨¿°, ÀÔ
¿ø ¹× µ¿Á¤¸Æ·ç »ç°ÇÀ» Á¶»çÇÏ¿©, µ¿ÀÏ È¯ÀÚÀÇ 1³â Àü ropeladder¹ýÀ¸·Î Åõ¼®ÇÑ ±â°£ÀÇ ÀÚ·á¿Í ºñ±³ ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù.
°á°ú: ÃÑ 48¸í(³²ÀÚ 34¸í, ³ªÀÌ 49.4 ¡¾ 13.8¼¼)ÀÌ buttonhole ¼ú±â¸¦ ½ÃÀÛÇÏ¿´°í, 3¸íÀº buttonholeÀ» ¸¸µéÁö ¸øÇÏ¿´°í, 3
¸íÀº À̽Ä, 1¸íÀº Àü¿øÀ¸·Î buttonhole ¼ú±â¸¦ Áß´ÜÇÏ¿´´Ù. Buttonhole õÀÚ¸¦ Áö¼ÓÇÑ 41¸íÀÇ 15.1 ¡¾ 4.7°³¿ù ÃßÀû±â°£¿¡ 13¸í(29.2%)¿¡¼ °¨¿°ÀÌ ¹ß»ýÇÏ¿´°í, µ¿Á¤¸Æ·ç ±¹¼Ò°¨¿° 5¸í, Æó·Å 3¸í, ±ÕÇ÷Áõ 2¸í, ºÀ¿ÍÁ÷¿° 1¸í, °£³ó¾ç 1¸í, °ñ¼ö¿° 1¸í ¼øÀ̾ú´Ù. À̵éÀÇ rope-ladder õÀÚ ±â°£°ú buttonhole ±â°£ÀÇ °¨¿°, ÀÔ¿ø, µ¿Á¤¸Æ·ç »ç°ÇÀº À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷À̰¡ ¾ø¾ú´Ù.
°á·Ð: Buttonhole õÀÚ´Â rope-ladderõÀÚ¿¡ ºñÇØ °¨¿°, ÀÔ¿ø ¹× µ¿Á¤¸Æ·ç »ç°ÇÀÇ À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷À̰¡ ¾ø´Ù
Background/Aims: The buttonhole technique, in which needle insertion during cannulation is always into the same site, confers advantages including ease of cannulation, ease of achieving hemostasis, and reduced pain compared with rope-ladder needling. We introduced the buttonhole technique in hemodialysis patients experiencing pain during needling. None of the disadvantages associated with the buttonhole technique, such as infection or access events, were observed, due to the short duration of the study.
Methods: Patients undergoing buttonhole needling were observed prospectively. Data were collected on the following parameters: infectious complications, hospitalizations and access events. We compared buttonhole and rope-ladder needling using baseline data.
Results: A total of 48 patients (34 males; mean age = 49.4 ¡¾ 13.8 years) were enrolled. Seven patients were excluded: in three patients, the buttonhole technique failed to form a tract, three others underwent kidney transplantation, and one was lost to follow-up. The remaining 41 patients were followed for 15.7 ¡¾ 4.7 months. Thirteen patients suffered infections, as follows: local infections (n = 5), pneumonia (n = 3), bacteremia (n = 2), cellulitis (n = 1), osteomyelitis (n = 1), and liver abscess (n = 1). There were no significant differences between the rope-ladder and buttonhole needling techniques in rates of infection, hospitalization or vascular access events.
Conclusions: The infection rate and access event frequency associated with buttonhole needling did not differ in relation to that of rope-ladder needling.
Ű¿öµå
õÀÚ, µ¿Á¤¸Æ·ç, Ç÷¾×Åõ¼®
Buttonhole cannulation, Arteriovenous fistula, Hemodialysis
KMID :
0882420140870050574
¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸
µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸
À¯È¿¼º°á°ú(Recomendation)