Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

¿Ü»ó¼º °æºÎ¼Õ»óÀÇ Ä¡·á¿Í ÀÓ»óÀû ºÐ¼® Clinical Analysis and Treatment of Cervical Spine Injury

´ëÇѽŰæ¿Ü°úÇÐȸÁö 1997³â 26±Ç 3È£ p.394 ~ 400
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
±èÀÇÁß/Sui Jung Kim ÃÖ¿ø±Ô/ÁÖÇü±Ù/¹®ÇüºÀ/Á¶ÀçÈÆ/Á¶Ã¢¿ø/À±¼º¹®/Weon Gyu Choi/Hyeong Geun Joo/Heong Bong Moon/Jae Hoon Cho/Chang Won Cho/Sung Moon Yoon

Abstract

°á ·Ð
º»¿øÀÇ °æÃß ¼Õ»ó ȯÀÚÀÇ ¼ºº° ¹× ³ªÀÌÀÇ ºóµµ´Â 30´ë ³²ÀÚ È¯ÀÚ¿¡¼­ °¡Àå ¸¹¾Ò°í ±³Åë»ç
°í·Î ÀÎÇÑ ¼Õ»óÀÌ ´ëºÎºÐÀ» Â÷ÁöÇÏ¿´´Ù. Á¤º¹ÀÌ ÇÊ¿äÇÏ¿´´ø ȯÀÚ´Â head halter traction¸¸À¸
·Î ¹«¸® ¾øÀÌ Á¤º¹ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú°í 50ÆÄ¿îµå À̻󿡼­µµ Á¤º¹ÀÌ µÇÁö ¾Ê´Â °æ¿ì´Â ÈĹæÀ¸·Î Á¢
±ÙÇÏ¿© Á¤º¹ ¹× °íÁ¤À» ½ÃÇàÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¼ö¼ú ½Ã±â¿Í ½Å°æȸº¹Á¤µµ, ÇÕº´ÁõÀÇ ¹ß»ý µîÀº Åë°èÇÐ
Àû Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ¾ø¾úÀ¸¸ç ÁÖ±âÀûÀ¸·Î ¾Ð·ÂÀÌ º¯È¯µÇ´Â ħ´ë¸¦ »ç¿ëÇÏ¿© ¿åâÀÇ ºóµµ¸¦ ÁÙÀÏ ¼ö
ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. »óºÎ °æÃß ¼Õ»ó¿¡¼­´Â ÁÖ·Î º¸Á¸Àû ¿ä¹ýÀ¸·Î ÁÁÀº °á°ú¸¦ ¾òÀ» ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú°í, ¼ö¼úÀû
°¡·á°¡ ÇÊ¿äÇÒ °æ¿ì´Â ÈĹæ Á¢±Ù¹ýÀ» ÁÖ·Î »ç¿ëÇÏ¿´´Ù. ÇϺΠ°æÃß ¼Õ»ó¿¡¼­´Â Æó¼âÁ¤º¹¿¡
¼º°øÇÏ°í ÈĹæ Á¢±Ù¹ýÀÇ Ã´¼ö ¾Ð¹ÚÀÌ ¾ø¾ú´ø ¸ðµç ȯÀÚ¿¡°Ô Àü¹æ°íÁ¤¼úÀ» ½ÃÇàÇÏ¿© Àü·Ê¿¡
¼­ °ß°íÇÑ °ñ À¶ÇÕÀ» ¾òÀ» ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú´Ù.
±×·¯³ª Àü¹æ °æÀ¯ °íÁ¤¹ýÀÌ ÈÄ¹æ °æÀ¯ °íÁ¤¹ýº¸´Ù ¸ðµç °æ¿ì¿¡¼­ ¿ì¿ùÇÏ´Ù´Â ÀÓ»óÀûÀÎ ±Ù
°Å´Â ¾øÀ¸¸ç Àü¹æÁ¢±Ù¼ú ½Ã¼ú½Ã ¹ß»ýÇÒ ¼öµµ ÀÖ´Â ½Äµµ õ°ø, ½Å°æ¼Õ»óµîÀº Çѹø ¹ß»ýÇϸé
ȯÀÚÀÇ »ý¸íÀ» À§ÇùÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖÀ¸¹Ç·Î Ç×»ó ÁÖÀǸ¦ ¿äÇÑ´Ù. °á±¹ Àü¹æ °æÀ¯ ȤÀº ÈÄ¹æ °æÀ¯ °í
Àü ¹ýÀº ¼­·ÎÀÇ ´ÜÁ¡À» º¸¿ÏÇÑ ¿©·¯ °¡Áö ±â±¸¿Í ½Ã¼ú¹ýÀÇ °³¹ß·Î Àý´ëÀûÀÎ ºñ±³ ÆÇ´ÜÀÌ ÀÇ
¹Ì°¡ ¾øÀ¸¸ç ¼ö¼ú ¹ýÀÇ ¼±ÅÃÀº °ñ, ÀÎ´ë °æ¼ö, ½Å°æ±Ùµî¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ÇغÎ, »ý¸® ¿ªÇÐ º´¸®ÇÐÀûÀÎ
±¤¹üÀ§ÇÑ ºÐ¼®»Ó¸¸ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó ½Ã¼úÀÚ ½Ã¼úÀÚÀÇ ¼÷·Ãµµ, ½Ã¼úÀÇ Àå´ÜÁ¡µîÀ» ½ÅÁßÇÏ°Ô °í·ÁÇÏ¿©
°ñ À¶ÇÕ°ú, ¾ÈÁ¤¼º È®º¸, ô¼öÀÇ °¨¾Ð¿¡ À¯¸®ÇÑ ¹æÇâÀ¸·Î ½Ã¼úµÇ¾î¾ß ÇÏ¸ç ¼ö¼ú ÈÄ Áö¼ÓÀûÀÎ
ÃßÀû °Ë»ç·Î ¹®Á¦°¡ ¹ß»ý½Ã Àû±ØÀûÀ¸·Î ÇØ°áÇÏ·Á´Â ³ë·ÂÀÌ ´õ¿í Áß¿äÇÒ °ÍÀ¸·Î »ç·áµÈ´Ù.
#ÃÊ·Ï#
This study analyzed 88 patients who sustained a cervical spine injury during the past
4 years(Jan, 1993-May, 1996) in whom had 33 anterior, 21 posterior interventions were
underwent and 34 remaining patients received conservative treatment with halovest. In
45 cases of upper cervical injuries, 16 operation were done. Among these, anterior
approach was used in 3 patients and posterior and posterior approach in 13 patients. In
43 cases of lower cervical injuries, 39 operations were done. The anterior approach was
used in 30 patients, posterior approach in 9 patients and bilateral approached in
remaining 4 cases.
For patients with a predominent posterior ligagementous or osteoligamentous lesion,
we selected anterior approach, when closed reduction was possible. Whenever the facet
joint remained interlocked, a posterior approach was chosen. This report dose not
mentioned priority of anterior procedure at any case.
Although clinical experience dose not support the experimental data, we examined the
reliability of anterior approach with use of internal fixation.

Å°¿öµå

Cervical spine injuries; Anterior approach; Posterior approach.;

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KoreaMed
KAMS