Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

¼Ò¾ÆÀÇ ¾çÃø ½Å¿ì¿ä°üÀÌÇàºÎÆó»ö¿¡¼­ ÀÏÃø ¼ö¼ú±º°ú º¸Á¸Àû Ä¡·á±ºÀÇ °æ°ú ºñ±³ Comparison between Unilateral Pyeloplasty and Conservative Treatment in Bilateral Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction of Children

´ëÇѺñ´¢±â°úÇÐȸÁö 1998³â 39±Ç 12È£ p.1248 ~ 1253
Áø½Âȸ, Á¶Ã¶±Ô, ÀÌ¿ë¹è,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
Áø½Âȸ (  ) 
¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ºñ´¢±â°úÇб³½Ç

Á¶Ã¶±Ô (  ) 
¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ºñ´¢±â°úÇб³½Ç
ÀÌ¿ë¹è (  ) 
¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ºñ´¢±â°úÇб³½Ç

Abstract

¼­·Ð
½Å¿ì¿ä°üÀÌÇàºÎÆó»öÀº ¼Ò¾Æ¿¡ À־ ¼ö½ÅÁõÀ» ¾ß±âÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â »óºÎ¿ä·ÎÆó»öÁß °¡Àå ÈçÇÑ
¿øÀÎÀ̸ç, ÃÖ±Ù »êÀü ÃÊÀ½ÆÄ°Ë»çÀÇ ¹ß´Þ·Î ±× ¹ß°ß ºóµµ°¡ Áõ°¡ Ãß¼¼¿¡ ÀÖ´Ù ÀÏÃø¼º ½Å¿ì¿ä
°üÀÌÇàºÎÆó»öÀÇ °æ¿ì,½Å±â´É ÀúÇÏ°¡ ¶Ñ·ÇÇÏ°í Æó»öÀÇ Á¤µµ°¡ ½ÉÇϰųª ¹Ýº¹ÀûÀÎ ¿ä·Î°¨¿°ÀÌ
¹®Á¦µÇ´Â °æ¿ì ´õ ÀÌ»óÀÇ ½Å¼Õ»óÀ» ¹æÁöÇÏ°í ½Å±â´ÉÀÇ º¸Á¸À» À§ÇØ Á¶±â¼ö¼úÀÇ Çʿ伺À» ÁÖ
ÀåÇÏ´Â ÀÇ°ßÀÌ ÀÖ´Â ¹Ý¸é, ¼Ò¾Æ ¼ö½ÅÁõÀÇ °ÔºÎºÐÀº ½Å±â´ÉÀÇ °©ÀÛ½º·± º¯È­·Î »ý±â´Â ÀϽÃ
Àû Çö»óÀ¸·Î¼­ ¿ä·Î°¨¿°À» ¿¹¹æÇÏ°í ÀûÀýÈ÷ ÃßÀû°üÂûÇÏÀÚ´Â ÁÖÀåÀ¸·Î ´ëº°µÇ¾î ÀÖÀ¸³ª º¸Á¸
Àû Ä¡·á¸¦ ÁÖÀåÇÏ´Â °æ¿ì¿¡µµ ´ëÃø ½ÅÀåÀÌ Á¤»óÀ̰ųª º¸»óÀÛ¿ëÀÌ ÀϾ´Â ÀÏÃø¼º ½Å¿ì¿ä
°üÆó»ö¿¡ ±¹ÇѵǾî ÀÖ´Ù. ±×·¯³ª, ¾çÃø¼º ½Å¿ì¿ä°üÆó»öÀÇ °æ¿ì »ó´ëÀû º¸»óÀÛ¿ëÀÌ ÀÏÃø¼º°ú
°°Àº Á¤µµ·Î ÀϾ´ÂÁö ¹àÇôÁ® ÀÖÁö ¾ÊÀ¸¸ç, ¼ö¼ú½Ã±â ¹× ¼ö¼úÀÇ ÀûÀÀÁ¶°Ç¿¡ ´ëÇؼ­´Â Çö
Àç±îÁö º¸°íµÈ ¹Ù ¾ø´Â ½ÇÁ¤ÀÌ´Ù. ÀÌ¿¡ ÀúÀÚµéÀº À¯¾Æ±â¿¡ Áø´ÜµÈ ½Å¿ì¿ä°üÀÌÇàºÎÆó»öÁß ¾à
10-40%·Î º¸°íµÇ°í ÀÖ´Â ¾çÃø¼º ½Å¿ì¿ä°üÀÌÇàºÎÆó»öÀÌ ÀÏÃø¼º°ú´Â ´Ù¸¥ °æ°ú¸¦ º¸ÀÏ °ÍÀ¸
·Î ÃßÃøµÇ¾î ¾çÃø¼º ½Å¿ì¿ä°üÀÌÇàºÎÆó»ö ȯ¾Æ¿¡¼­ Á¶±â¼ö¼ú°ú º¸Á¸Àû ¿ä¹ýÀÇ Ä¡·á°á°ú¸¦ ºñ
±³ÇÔÀ¸·Î½á ±× º´Àΰú ÀÚ¿¬°æ°ú¸¦ ÀÌÇØÇÏ°í ¿¹ÈÄ ¹× Ä¡·á°áÁ¤¿¡ µµ¿òÀÌ µÇ°íÀÚ ÇÏ¿´´Ù.
#ÃÊ·Ï#
Purpose : As bilateral ureteropelvic junction obstruction(UPJO) is expected to follow a
different clinical course than unilateral UPJO, we compared the results of different
treatment approaches to bilateral UPJO in an attempt to understand the natural course
and the prognosis of the disease.
Materials and Methods : Twenty six patients were selected among patients diagnosed
with bilateral hydronephrosis during the last 7 years, excluding those with grade ¥±(G
¥±) or less hydronephrosis In both kidney, those accompanied with VUR or other
urinary tract anomalies and those who had received bilateral pyeloplasty. Seven patients
underwent unilateral pyeloplasty and remaining 19 patients received conservative
treatment with prophylactic antibiotics. Of 19 patients on conseNative treatment, 2
patients received unilateral pyeloplasty due to no improvement or aggravation of
hydronephrosis after more than 6months follow-up.
Results : All patients were male and mean follow-up period was 13months(3-4months).
On separate comparison of more severe and milder sides in both groups, surgical
intervention group showed faster improvement than conservative group in both sides.
Mean time to improvement to G¥± or less hydronephrosis was 5.7months and 5.0months
for surgical intervention group and 16.1 months and 13.1 months for conservative group
respectively for more severe sides and milder sides. At 6 months follow-up, the ratio of
improvement to G¥± or less was higher in surgical intervention group for both sides.
Conclusions : Surgery and conservative treatment yielded comparable improvement, but
in aspects of rate and ratio of improvement, surgery group can be expected to show
faster and more reliable improvement. Early surgical correction should be considered in
patients with bilateral UPJO in order to provide early protection to the contralateral and
ipsilateral kidney, especially in age range with rapid maturation of renal function.

Å°¿öµå

Ureteropelvic junction obstruction; Bilateral; Pyeloplasty;

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

   

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI
KoreaMed
KAMS