Previous | Home | EndoTODAY | List | Next


[Inserting endoscope (4). ³»½Ã°æ »ðÀÔ¹ý]

9. ȯÀÚ¿¡°Ô ħÀ» »ïÅ°¶ó°í ¿ä±¸ÇÏÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù.

°ú°Å¿¡´Â ȯÀÚ¿¡°Ô ħÀ» »ïÅ°¶ó°í ¿ä±¸ÇÏ´Â °æ¿ì°¡ ¸¹¾Ò½À´Ï´Ù. ±×·¯³ª ȯÀÚ°¡ ħÀ» »ïÅ°´Â µîÀÇ ÇൿÀ» ÇÏ¸é ¿ÀÈ÷·Á upper esophageal sphincter°¡ Á¶¿©Áö´Â ¼ø°£ÀÌ ¹ß»ýÇÕ´Ï´Ù. ³»½Ã°æ ÀÇ»ç¿Í ȯÀÚ°¡ Á¤È®ÇÏ°Ô ¹ÚÀÚ°¡ ¸ÂÁö ¾ÊÀ¸¸é »ðÀÔÀÌ Èûµé¾îÁý´Ï´Ù. ÃÖ±Ù¿¡´Â ȯÀÚ¿¡°Ô ħÀ» »ïÅ°¶ó°í ¿ä±¸ÇÏÁö ¾Ê´Â °æ¿ì°¡ ´ëºÎºÐÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ¿©·¯¹ø ½ÃµµÇÏ¿´À¸³ª Àß µÇÁö ¾ÊÀ» ¶§¿¡ ÇÑÇÏ¿© ħÀ» »ïÅ°µµ·Ï ¿ä±¸ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ ÁÁ½À´Ï´Ù.


10. ȯÀÚ¿Í ÀûÀýÇÑ °Å¸®¸¦ À¯ÁöÇÑ´Ù.

ȯÀÚ¿¡ ³Ê¹« Á¢±ÙÇÏ¸é »ðÀԺΰ¡ ÈÖ¾îÁö¸é¼­ ³»½Ã°æÀÇ Á¶ÀÛ¼ºÀÌ ¶³¾îÁý´Ï´Ù (¾Æ·¡ ±×¸² ÂüÁ¶). Àû´çÇÏ°Ô ¶³¾îÁ®¼­ ³»½Ã°æÀÌ Ç×»ó Å©°í ºÎµå·¯¿î °î¼±À» À¯ÁöÇϵµ·Ï ÇØ¾ß ÇÕ´Ï´Ù.


±×¸²¼³¸í: ȯÀÚ¿Í °Å¸®°¡ ³Ê¹« °¡±î¿ö ³»½Ã°æ »ðÀԺΰ¡ ÈØ ¸ð½À. ÇÑ ¹ß¦ µÚ·Î ¹°·¯¼­¾ß ÇÕ´Ï´Ù.


11. ¼± ÀÚ¼¼·Î °Ë»çÇÑ´Ù.

°£È¤ ¾ÉÀº ÀÚ¼¼·Î À§³»½Ã°æÀ» ÇÏ´Â ¸Å¿ì ¸Å¿ì ³ª»Û ½À°üÀ» °¡Áø ºÐÀÌ °è½Ê´Ï´Ù. (1) »ðÀÔÇÒ ¶§ ³»½Ã°æÀ» ¼¶¼¼ÇÏ°Ô Á¶ÀýÇÒ ¼ö ¾ø½À´Ï´Ù. (2) ȯÀÚ¿Í ÀûÀýÇÑ °Å¸®¸¦ À¯ÁöÇϱ⠾î·Æ½À´Ï´Ù. (3) Á¶ÀÛ¼ºÀÌ ¶³¾îÁö¹Ç·Î ¼Õ°¡¶ô, Ç㸮, ¾î±ú¸¦ ¸¹ÀÌ ½á¾ß ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. ÀÇ»ç ÀÚ½ÅÀÇ ergonomic problemÀÌ ¹ß»ýÇÕ´Ï´Ù. ¹Ýµå½Ã ¼± ÀÚ¼¼·Î °Ë»çÇսôÙ.


[2013 Yonsei Gastric Cancer Symposium]

¾îÁ¦ 2013³â 9¿ù 28ÀÏ ¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ 2013 À§¾Ï ½ÉÆ÷Áö¾öÀÌ ¿­·È½À´Ï´Ù.

1. Diagnosis for major surgical complications - ¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ ¿µ»óÀÇÇаú ÀÓÁؼ®

À§¾Ï ¼ö¼ú ÈÄ postoperatve leakage Áø´Ü¿¡ oral contrast¸¦ »ç¿ëÇÑ CT°¡ Å« µµ¿òÀÌ µË´Ï´Ù (¾Æ·¡ ¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ ¿¬±¸ °á°ú ÂüÁ¶).

Clinical implication of positive oral contrast computed tomography for the evaluation of postoperative leakage after gastrectomy for gastric cancer JCAT 2010:34(4):537. There were 162 patients without extraluminal contrast leakage (77.1%), 13 with grade 1 leakage (6.2%), 19 with grade 2 (9.0%), and 16 with grade 3 (7.6%). Postoperative intervention rate, hospital stay, and mortality were significantly higher in patients with extraluminal contrast than those in patients without extraluminal contrast (P < 0.05). Postoperative hospital stays increased as the leakage grades increased (P = 0.0008). The matching accuracy between CT and other studies was 82.1% (n = 32/39).

ÃâÇ÷ÀÌ CT angiography¿¡¼­ º¸ÀÌÁö ¾ÊÀ¸¸é catheter angiography¿¡¼­µµ º¸ÀÌÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù°í ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. CT angiography´Â 0.3-0.5ml/minÀÇ ¹Î°¨µµ¸¦ °¡Áö°í Àֱ⠶§¹®¿¡ catheter angiographyÀÇ 0.5ml/min¿Í ºñ½ÁÇϰųª ¿ì¿ùÇÕ´Ï´Ù. °£È¤ ÃâÇ÷ÀÌ ÀǽɵǴ »óȲ¿¡¼­ oral contrast CT°¡ ó¹æµÇ´Â °æ¿ì°¡ Àִµ¥ ÀÌ´Â ¹Ýµå½Ã ÇÇÇØ¾ß ÇÕ´Ï´Ù.


2. Endoscopic treatment - ¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ ³»°ú ÀÌ»ó±æ

¼ö¼ú ÈÄ ÃâÇ÷¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ³»½Ã°æÄ¡·á¿Í °ü·ÃµÈ ¿¬±¸°á°ú´Â ¸Å¿ì Àû½À´Ï´Ù. µ¿¾Æ´ëÇб³ÀÇ ÀÚ·áÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

Endoscopic treatment and risk factors of postoperative anastomotic bleeding after gastrectomy for gastric cancer. Of 2031 patients with gastric cancer who underwent radical gastrectomy (R0 resection) between January 2002 and December 2010, postoperative anastomotic bleeding was observed in 7 patients...... The bleeding sites were as follows: Billroth-I anastomosis using a circular stapler (n = 1), Billroth-II anastomosis by manual suture (n = 5), and esophagojejunostomy using a circular stapler (n = 1). All patients were treated with endoscopic clipping or epinephrine injection. There was no further endoscopic intervention or reoperation for anastomotic bleeding.

Leakage¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ º´¿øÀÇ °á°úÀÔ´Ï´Ù. 2 cm ÀÌ»óÀÌ¸é ³»½Ã°æÄ¡·á°¡ ¾î·Æ½À´Ï´Ù.

Endoscopic management of anastomotic leakage after gastrectomy for gastric cancer: how efficacious is it? The authors retrospectively reviewed 33 patients with anastomotic leakage who had underdone endoscopic treatment among 5249 patients with gastric cancer who underwent radical total or subtotal gastrectomy. The size of the tissue defect was the only factor that had statistically significant differences among the cases with complete closure, partial closure and failure (p = 0.005). For tissue defects smaller than 2 cm in size, complete closure was achieved in 19 (73.1%), partial closure in 5 patients (19.2%) and 2 failed (7.6%). For those larger than 2 cm in size, one (14.3%) was completely closed, four (57.1%) were partially closed and two (28.6%) failed.

ÃÖ±Ù¿¡´Â leakage¿¡ ´ëÇÏ¿© ±âÁ¸ÀÇ ³»½Ã°æÄ¡·á»Ó¸¸ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó stent¸¦ ¸¹ÀÌ ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ°í ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. ±×¸®°í over-the-scope clip (OTSC)ÀÌ ½ÃµµµÇ°í ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. ¾Æ·¡´Â µ¶ÀÏÀÇ °á°úÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

The Over-The-Scope Clip (OTSC) for the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding, perforations, and fistulas. Since April 2006, 50 patients have been treated for different indications with the OTSC clip in our department. Besides hemostasis (n = 27) in the colon and the upper GI tract, the clip has been used for closure of esophageal and gastric perforations and adaptation of covered and free perforations after colonoscopy (n = 11). Furthermore, the OTSC has been used to close fistulas (n = 8) and for preoperative marking (n = 4). The primary treatment was successful in all cases. There were two secondary bleedings that required endoscopic interventions. Closure of iatrogenic perforations of the upper and lower GI tract was successful in all cases. A permanent closure of fistulas could not be achieved in all cases with the OTSC clip.

ÀÌ¿ëÂù ÁÂÀå´Ô comment: ¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³¿¡¼­´Â endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure¸¦ 3¿¹ Á¤µµ Àû¿ëÇÑ °æÇèÀÌ ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. ÁÖ·Î ½Äµµ¿¡¼­ »ç¿ëÇÏ´Â ¹æ¹ýÀÌÁö¸¸ À§¾Ï ¼ö¼ú ÈÄ¿¡µµ »ç¿ëÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. ¾Æ·¡´Â µ¶ÀÏÀÇ °á°úÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

Endoscopic closure of esophageal intrathoracic leaks: stent versus endoscopic vacuum-assisted closure, a retrospective analysis. In a retrospective analysis we were able to identify 39 patients who were treated with SEMS or SEPS and 32 patients who were treated with EVAC for intrathoracic leakage. In addition to successful fistula closure, we analyzed hospital mortality, number of endoscopic interventions, incidence of stenoses, and duration of hospitalization. In a multivariate analysis, successful wound closure was independently associated with EVAC therapy (hazard ratio 2.997, 95 % confidence interval [95 %CI] 1.568 - 5.729; P = 0.001). The overall closure rate was significantly higher in the EVAC group (84.4 %) compared with the SEMS/SEPS group (53.8 %). No difference was found for hospitalization and hospital mortality. We found significantly more strictures in the stent group (28.2 % vs. 9.4 % with EVAC, P < 0,05).


3. Radiologic treatment - °¡Å縯´ëÇб³ ¿µ»óÀÇÇаú ÀÌÇرÔ

Duodenal stump leakage¿¡¼­ Foley catheter¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÑ drainage°¡ À¯¿ëÇÕ´Ï´Ù.

Percutaneous management of postoperative duodenal stump leakage with foley catheter. Ten consecutive patients (M:F = 9:1, median age: 64 years) were included in this retrospective study. The duodenal stump leakages were diagnosed in all the patients within a median of 10 days (range, 6-20). At first, the patients underwent percutaneous drainage on the day of or the day after confirmation of the presence of duodenal stump leakage, and then the Foley catheters were replaced at a median of 9 days (range, 6-38) after the percutaneous drainage. Foley catheters were placed successfully in the duodenal lumen of all the patients under a fluoroscopic guide. No complication was observed during and after the procedures in all the patients. All of the patients started a regular diet 1 day after the Foley catheter placement. The patients were discharged at a median of 7 days (range, 5-14) after the Foley catheter placement. The catheters were removed in an outpatient clinic 10-58 days (median, 28) after the Foley catheter placement.

»óºÎÀ§Àå°ü transarterial catheter embolization¿¡¼­´Â collateralÀÌ ¸¹±â ¶§¹®¿¡ ischemic damage¸¦ Å©°Ô °ÆÁ¤ÇÏÁö ¾Ê½À´Ï´Ù. ±×·¯³ª Whipple ¼ö¼ú µî Å« ¼ö¼ú ÈÄ¿¡´Â collateralÀÌ °ÅÀÇ ¾ø±â ¶§¹®¿¡ ischemic damage °¡´É¼ºÀ» °í·ÁÇØ¾ß ÇÕ´Ï´Ù.

ù ¿¬ÀÚ²²¼­ "ÃâÇ÷ÀÌ CT angiography¿¡¼­ º¸ÀÌÁö ¾ÊÀ¸¸é catheter angiography¿¡¼­µµ º¸ÀÌÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù"°í ÇϼÌÁö¸¸ postsurgical bleeding »óȲ¿¡¼­´Â ¾à°£ ´Ù¸£´Ù°í »ý°¢ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. PseudoaneurysmÀÌ ¸¹±â ¶§¹®ÀÔ´Ï´Ù. PseudoanuerysmÀº ¾Æ¹«¸® À۾Ƶµ Ä¡·á¸¦ ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ ¿øÄ¢ÀÔ´Ï´Ù. PseudoaneurysmÀ» ¸·À» ¶§¿¡´Â colleteralÀÌ ¸¹±â ¶§¹®¿¡ ÇÑ °÷¸¸ ¸·À¸¸é ÀçÃâÇ÷ÀÌ ¸¹½À´Ï´Ù. Isolation technique (front door¿Í back door¸¦ ¸ðµÎ ¸·´Â °Í)ÀÌ Áß¿äÇÕ´Ï´Ù. ÃÖ±Ù¿¡´Â blood flow¸¦ À¯Áö½ÃÅ°±â À§ÇÏ¿© stent graft¸¦ »ç¿ëÇϱ⵵ ÇÕ´Ï´Ù.


À§¾Ï ½ÉÆ÷Áö¾öÀÌ ¿­¸° ¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ º´¿ø ·Îºñ¿¡¼­ ¿ì¿¬È÷ ¿À·¡µÈ Ä«¸Þ¶óµéÀÌ Àü½ÃµÈ °ÍÀ» º¸¾Ò½À´Ï´Ù. ¿©·¯ ±³¼ö´Ôµé°ú ȯÀÚµéÀÌ ±âÁõÇÑ °ÍÀ̾ú½À´Ï´Ù. ´ëÇѱâ´É¼ºÁúȯ¿îµ¿ÇÐȸ Àü ȸÀå´ÔÀ̽Š¹ÚÈ¿Áø ¼±»ý´Ô²²¼­ ±âÁõÇÑ Pentax Ä«¸Þ¶óµµ ÀÖ¾ú½À´Ï´Ù. ¹ÚÈ¿Áø ±³¼ö´Ô. Á¸°æÇÕ´Ï´Ù.


¼­¹Î ±³¼ö´ÔÀÇ '±â»ýÃæ¿­Àü'À» Àаí ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. ¹®µæ EndoTODAY¿¡¼­ ¼Ò°³µå·È´ø ±â»ýÃæ¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Á¤º¸¸¦ ¸ð¾Æº¸ÀÚ´Â »ý°¢ÀÌ µé¾ú½À´Ï´Ù.

[EndoTODAY Parasitology. ¿£µµÅõµ¥ÀÌ ±â»ýÃæÇÐ]

1. ¿£µµÅõµ¥ÀÌ ±â»ýÃæÇÐ ¿äÁ¡

1) ¸®ºä (text): ³»½Ã°æ °Ë»ç Áß ¸¸³ª´Â ±â»ýÃæ (PDF. 0.6 M)

2) °­ÀÇ Powerpoint: ³»°ú Àǻ縦 À§ÇÑ À§Àå°ü ±â»ýÃæÁúȯ (PDF. 6.5 M)

3) ±â»ýÃæ Ç¥ÁØó¹æÀü (PDF. 0.1 M)


2. À§Àå°ü ±â»ýÃæ GI parasites

1) ±â»ýÃæÀÇ ºÐ·ù

2) ±â»ýÃæÀÇ ¿ªÇÐ


3. ¼±Ãæ Round worms

1) ȸÃæ Ascaris lumbricoides

2) ¿äÃæ Enterobius vermicularis

3) ÆíÃæ Trichuris trichiura - ¾î¶² Áú¹®

4) ±¸Ãæ (=½ÊÀÌÁöÀåÃæ) Hook worms - ¾î¶² Áú¹®

5) ¾Æ´Ï»çÅ°½º Anisakis

6) ºÐ¼±Ãæ Strongyloides stercoralis

7) °³È¸Ãæ Toxocara canis

8) Àå¸ð¼¼¼±Ãæ Capillaria philippinensis (¾ÏÈ£: smcgi)

9) ¼±¸ðÃæ Trichinella spiralis

10) ½ºÆĸ£°¡´®


4. ÈíÃæ Trematodes

1) °£ÈíÃæ Clonorchis sinensis - C. sinensis egg in ENBD fluid (¾ÏÈ£: smcgi)

2) °£Áú Fasciola hepatica - triclabendazole

3) ÆóÈíÃæ Paragonimus westermani

4) ¿äÄÚ°¡¿Í ÈíÃæ Metagonimus yokogawai

5) ÁÖÇ÷ÈíÃæ Schistosomiasis


5. Á¶Ãæ Tapeworms

1) ±¤Àý¿­µÎÁ¶Ãæ D. latum

2) ¾Æ½Ã¾ÆÁ¶Ãæ Taenia asciatica (¾ÏÈ£: smcgi)


6. ¿øÃæ Protozoas

1) ÀÌÁú¾Æ¸Þ¹Ù Entamoeba histolytica

2) ¶÷ºíÆí¸ðÃæ Giardia lamblia


7. ÀÇ¿ëÀýÁöµ¿¹°

1) ¸Ó¸´´Ï¿Í ¿È

2) µ¹¾Æ¿Â ºó´ë (¾ÏÈ£: smcgi)

3) SFTS (severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome, ÁßÁõ¿­¼ºÇ÷¼ÒÆÇ°¨¼ÒÁõÈıº) and tick. »ìÀÎÁøµå±â


8. ±â»ýÃæÁõÀÇ Ä¡·á

1) ¼ÒÈ­±â ±â»ýÃæ Ç¥ÁØ Ã³¹æ (¹«Áõ»ó ¼ºÀο¡¼­ ¹ß°ßµÈ °æ¿ìµµ µ¿ÀÏ Ã³¹æ)

2) Albendazole°ú mebendazoleÀÇ Â÷ÀÌ

3) ¿äÃæÀÌ °è¼Ó Àç¹ßÇÕ´Ï´Ù

4) °³È¸Ãæ¿¡ ÀÇÇÑ È£»ê±¸¼º ³ó¾çÀº Ä¡·á°¡ ÇÊ¿äÇմϱî?

5) ¾Æ´Ï»çÅ°½º´Â ¾àÀ» ¾µ ÇÊ¿ä°¡ ¾ø½À´Ï±î?

6) °£ÈíÃæ¿¡ ´ëÇÏ¿© praziquantelÀ» Åõ¾àÇߴµ¥ ´ëº¯°Ë»ç¿¡¼­ °è¼Ó Ãæ¶õÀÌ ³ª¿É´Ï´Ù

7) °£Áú Ä¡·á¾àÀº ¾î¶»°Ô ±¸Çϳª¿ä?


9. ±âŸ

1) PDF EndoTODAY on GI Parasites

2) Paradox of the hygiene (¾ÏÈ£: smcgi)

3) ´Ü±¹´ëÇб³ ¼­¹Î ±³¼ö´Ô - ¼­¹Î on YouTube, ±â»ýÃæ°°Àº À̾߱â (blog) - ±â»ýÃæ¿­Àü

4) ±â»ýÃæ°ú ³»½Ã°æ (¼­Á¾¿Á)

5) ÀÓ»ó ±â»ýÃæÇÐ (äÁ¾ÀÏ ÆíÀú)

6) µ¿¾ÆÀÇ´ë ±â»ýÃæÇÐ ±³½Ç