³»½Ã°æÀû Á¦°Å°¡ ¾î·Á¿î ´ã°ü °á¼® ȯÀÚ¿¡¼­ ÀÏÂ÷ÀûÀÎ °æÇÇÀû °£°æÀ¯ ´ã¼® Á¦°Å¼úÀÇ À¯¿ë¼º
Effectiveness of Percutaneous Biliary Stone Removal as Primary Treatment in Cases with Difficulties in the Use of an Endoscopy

´ëÇÑ¿µ»óÀÇÇÐȸÁö 2014³â 70±Ç 3È£ p.225 ~ p.231

ÃֽžÖ(Choi Sin-Ae) - ÀüºÏ´ëÇб³ ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø ÀüºÏ´ëÇб³º´¿ø ¿µ»óÀÇÇаú
ÇÑ¿µ¹Î(Han Young-Min) - ÀüºÏ´ëÇб³ ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø ÀüºÏ´ëÇб³º´¿ø ¿µ»óÀÇÇб³½Ç
Áø°ø¿ë(Jin Gong-Yong) - ÀüºÏ´ëÇб³ ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø ÀüºÏ´ëÇб³º´¿ø ¿µ»óÀÇÇб³½Ç
À̽¿Á(Lee Seung-Ok) - ÀüºÏ´ëÇб³ Àǰú´ëÇÐ ÀüºÏ´ëÇб³º´¿ø ³»°úÇб³½Ç
À¯Èñö(Yu Hee-Chul) - ÀüºÏ´ëÇб³ ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø ÀüºÏ´ëÇб³º´¿ø ¿Ü°ú

Abstract

¸ñÀû: ³»½Ã°æÀû Á¦°Å°¡ ¾î·Á¿î ´ã°ü °á¼® ȯÀÚ¿¡¼­ ÀÏÂ÷Àû °æÇÇÀû °£°æÀ¯ ´ã¼® Á¦°Å¼úÀÇ À¯¿ë¼º¿¡ ´ëÇÏ¿© ¾Ë¾Æº¸°íÀÚ ÇÑ´Ù.

´ë»ó°ú ¹æ¹ý: 2004³â 3¿ùºÎÅÍ 2011³â 5¿ù±îÁö ´ã°ü °á¼®ÁõÀ» Áø´Ü¹Þ°í ÀÏÂ÷Àû °æÇÇÀû °£°æÀ¯ Ä¡·á¼úÀ» ¹ÞÀº 17¸í(1±º)°ú Á¶°ÇÀÌ ÀÏÄ¡ÇÏ´Â 34¸í(2±º)ÀÇ ÀÏÂ÷Àû ³»½Ã°æÀû Ä¡·á ȯÀÚ¸¦ ¼±Á¤ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ȯÀÚ Æ÷ÇÔ ±âÁØÀº 15 mm ÀÌ»óÀÇ ´ã°ü °á¼®, °£³» ´ã°ü °á¼® ¶Ç´Â À§Àå°ü ¿ìȸ¼úÀÇ ±â¿Õ·ÂÀÌ Àִ ȯÀÚ¿´À¸¸ç, °¢ ±º¿¡ ´ëÇÏ¿© ½Ã¼ú ¼º°ø·ü, ½Ã¼ú ÈÄ ÀÔ¿ø±â°£, ½Ã¼ú Àü°ú ÈÄÀÇ Amylase/Lipase ¼öÄ¡, ½Ã¼ú ÈÄ ÇÕº´ÁõÀ» ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´´Ù. Åë°èÀû ºÐ¼®¿¡´Â paired t-test ¶Ç´Â unpaired t-test¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿´´Ù.

°á°ú: ½Ã¼ú ¼º°ø·üÀº 1±º¿¡¼­ 94.1%·Î 2±º(85.3%)¿¡¼­º¸´Ù ³ô¾ÒÀ¸¸ç, 2±º¿¡¼­ ½Ã¼ú ÈÄ ÀÔ¿ø±â°£(p = 0.036)°ú ½Ã¼ú Àü°ú ÈÄÀÇ Amylase ¼öÄ¡(p = 0.017)°¡ À¯ÀÇÇÑ Áõ°¡¸¦ º¸¿´´Ù.

°á·Ð: ³»½Ã°æÀû Á¦°Å°¡ ¾î·Á¿î ´ã°ü °á¼® ȯÀÚ¿¡¼­ ÀÏÂ÷Àû °æÇÇÀû °£°æÀ¯ ´ã¼® Á¦°Å¼úÀº ¾ÈÀüÇϰí È¿°úÀûÀÎ ÀÏÂ÷Àû Á¢±Ù ¹æ¹ýÀÌ´Ù.
Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness of percutaneous biliary stone removal as a primary treatment in cases with difficulties to use an endoscopy.

Materials and Methods: From March 2004 to May 2011, 17 patients who underwent primary percutaneous biliary stone removal (Group 1) and 34 case-matched patients who underwent primary endoscopic biliary stone removal were selected (Group 2). The inclusion criteria were as follows: patients who had 1) ¡Ã 15 mm bile duct stones, 2) intrahepatic bile duct stones, 3) bile duct stones with a history of previous gastrointestinal bypass surgery. In the present study were analyzed the success rates, the length of postprocedural hospital stay, the change of Amylase/Lipase values and complications post procedure. Statistical analysis was performed using paired t-test and unpaired t-test.

Results: The success rate was higher in Group 1 (94.1%) than in Group 2 (85.3%). Length of post procedural hospital stay and the post procedural amylase level were significantly increased in Group 2 (p = 0.036 and p = 0.017, respectively).

Conclusion: In cases of bile duct stones with difficulties in the use of an endoscopy a percutaneous biliary stone removal can be efficient as a primary treatment.

Ű¿öµå

Percutaneous Biliary Stone Removal, Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangio, Pancreatography, ¡Ã 15 mm Bile Duct Stones, Intrahepatic Bile Duct Stones, History of Gastrointestinal Bypass Surgery
¿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