Cone Beam CT¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÑ Åõ½Ã À¯µµÇÏ ÇǺΰæÀ¯ À§Ã¢³¿¼ú°ú ³»½Ã°æÇÏ ÇǺΰæÀ¯ À§Ã¢³¿¼úÀÇ ºñ±³
Comparison of Percutaneous Radiologic Gastrostomy by Using Cone Beam CT and Endoscopic Gastrostomy

´ëÇÑ¿µ»óÀÇÇÐȸÁö 2014³â 70±Ç 1È£ p.17 ~ p.23

Á¤Çö³ç(Jung Hyun-Nyeong) - ÀüºÏ´ëÇб³ ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø ÀüºÏ´ëÇб³º´¿ø ¿µ»óÀÇÇаú
ÇÑ¿µ¹Î(Han Young-Min) - ÀüºÏ´ëÇб³ ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø ÀüºÏ´ëÇб³º´¿ø ¿µ»óÀÇÇаú
Áø°ø¿ë(Jin Gong-Yong) - ÀüºÏ´ëÇб³ ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø ÀüºÏ´ëÇб³º´¿ø ¿µ»óÀÇÇб³½Ç
ÃÖÀºÁ¤(Choi Eun-Jung) - ÀüºÏ´ëÇб³ ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø ÀüºÏ´ëÇб³º´¿ø ¿µ»óÀÇÇб³½Ç
¼ÛÁö¼ö(Song Ji-Soo) - ÀüºÏ´ëÇб³ ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø ÀüºÏ´ëÇб³º´¿ø ¿µ»óÀÇÇб³½Ç

Abstract

¸ñ Àû: C-arm cone beam CT¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÑ Åõ½Ã À¯µµÇÏ ÇǺΰæÀ¯ À§Ã¢³¿¼ú°ú ³»½Ã°æÇÏ ÇǺΰæÀ¯ À§Ã¢³¿¼úÀ» ºñ±³Çϰí C-arm cone beam CT »ç¿ëÀÇ À¯¿ë¼ºÀ» ¾Ë¾Æº¸°íÀÚ ÇÏ¿´´Ù.

´ë»ó ¹× ¹æ¹ý: ÃÖ±Ù 2³â µ¿¾È 129¸íÀÇ Åõ½Ã(n = 53) ¶Ç´Â ³»½Ã°æ(n = 76) ÇǺΰæÀ¯ À§Ã¢³¿¼úÀ» ½ÃÇà ¹ÞÀº ȯÀÚ¸¦ ÈÄÇâÀûÀ¸·Î ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù. Åõ½Ã À¯µµÇÏ ÇǺΰæÀ¯ À§Ã¢³¿¼ú ½ÃÇà Àü C-arm cone beam CT¸¦ ÅëÇÏ¿© ¾ÈÀüÇÑ °æ·Î¸¦ °áÁ¤ÇÏ¿´´Ù. µÎ ±ºÀÇ ±â¼úÀû ¼º°ø·ü, ÇÕº´Áõ ¹ß»ý·ü, µµ°üÀÇ À̵¿·üÀ» Åë°èÀû ¹æ¹ýÀ¸·Î ºñ±³ÇÏ¿´´Ù.

°á °ú: ½Ã¼úÀÇ ±â¼úÀû ¼º°ø·üÀº Åõ½Ã À¯µµÇÏ ÇǺΰæÀ¯ À§Ã¢³¿¼úÀÌ ³»½Ã°æÇÏ À§Ã¢³¿¼úº¸´Ù ³ô¾ÒÀ¸³ª(100% vs. 93%), Åë°èÀûÀ¸·Î À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷À̸¦ º¸ÀÌÁö ¾Ê¾Ò´Ù(p = 0.08). °æÁõ ÇÕº´ÁõÀº Åõ½Ã À¯µµÇÏ À§Ã¢³¿¼ú¿¡¼­ 5¸í(10%; 5/53, »óó °¨¿° 3¸í, »óó ÃâÇ÷ 2¸í), ³»½Ã°æÇÏ À§Ã¢³¿¼ú¿¡¼­ 6¸í ¹ß»ýÇÏ¿´´Ù(7.9%; 6/76, »óó °¨¿° 5¸í, ½Äµµ ±Ë¾ç 1¸í). ÁßÁõ ÇÕº´ÁõÀº ³»½Ã°æÇÏ À§Ã¢³¿¼ú¿¡¼­ 5¸í ¹ß»ýÇÏ¿´´Ù(6.6%; 5/76, ¹üº¹¸·¿° 1¸í, buried bumper syndrome 4¸í). µÎ ±º °£¿¡ °æÁõ ÇÕº´Áõ°ú ÁßÁõ ÇÕº´Áõ ¹ß»ý·üÀÇ À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ´Â ¾ø¾ú´Ù(°¢°¢ p = 0.759, p = 0.078). µµ°üÀÇ À̵¿Àº Åõ½Ã À¯µµÇÏ À§Ã¢³¿¼ú¿¡¼­ ´õ Àû¾ú´Ù(7.5% vs. 38.2%, p £¼ 0.005).

°á ·Ð: C-arm cone beam CT¸¦ »ç¿ëÇÑ Åõ½Ã À¯µµÇÏ ÇǺΰæÀ¯ À§Ã¢³¿¼úÀº ÃÖÀûÀÇ Á¢±Ù °æ·Î¸¦ È®º¸ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ¾ÈÀüÇÏ°í ¼º°ø·üÀÌ ³ôÀº ¹æ¹ýÀÌ¸ç ³»½Ã°æÇÏ À§Ã¢³¿¼ú¿¡ ºñÇÏ¿© µµ°üÀÇ À̵¿ÀÌ Àû´Ù.
Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy (PRG) by using cone beam CT and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG).

Materials and Methods: This study retrospectively reviewed 129 patients who underwent PRG (n = 53) and PEG (n = 76) over a 2-years period. The C-arm cone beam CT images were obtained from all PRG patients before the procedure in order to decide the safest accessing routes. The parameters including technical success rates, complication rates and tube migration rates were all analyzed according to statistical methods.

Results: The success rate of tube placement was higher in PRG than in PEG (100% to 93%, p = 0.08). Minor complications occurred in 5 patients of the PRG group (10%; 5/53, 3 wound infection, 2 blood oozing), and occurred in 6 patients of PEG group (7.9%; 6/76, 5 wound infection, 1 esophageal ulcer). Major complications occurred only in 5 patients of PEG group (6.6%; 5/76, 1 panperitonitis, 4 buried bumper syndrome). There were no statistical differences of minor and major complication rates in the two groups (respectively, p = 0.759, p = 0.078). Tube migration rate was lower in PRG than PEG group (7.5% vs. 38.2%, p < 0.005).

Conclusion: PRG using cone beam CT is the effective and safe method, the cone beam CT provides the safest accessing route during gastrostomy. Less tube migration occurs in the PRG than in PEG.

Ű¿öµå

Gastrostomy, Fluoroscopy, Endoscopy
¿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)
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