Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

À§½Äµµ ¿ª·ùÁúȯ ȯ¾Æ¿¡¼­ º¸Ç༺ ÀÌÁßä³Î ½Äµµ³» »êµµ °Ë»ç¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¿¬±¸ A Study of Dual-probe Esophageal pH Meter in Children with Gastroesophageal Reflux

´ëÇѼҾƼÒÈ­±â¿µ¾çÇÐȸÁö 2000³â 3±Ç 1È£ p.9 ~ 16
¾È¿µÁØ, ¹®°æ·¡,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
¾È¿µÁØ ( Ahn Young-Jun ) 
Á¶¼±´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾Æ°úÇб³½Ç

¹®°æ·¡ ( Moon Kyung-Rye ) 
Á¶¼±´ëÇб³ ÀÇ°ú´ëÇÐ ¼Ò¾Æ°úÇб³½Ç

Abstract

¸ñÀû : À§½Äµµ ¿ª·ù Áúȯ ȯ¾Æ¿¡¼­ ÀÌÁß Ã¤³Î 24½Ã°£ ½Äµµ pH ÃøÁ¤ °Ë»çÀÇ À¯¿ë¼ºÀ» Æò°¡
ÇÏ°í ½Äµµ ¿øÀ§ºÎ¿Í ±ÙÀ§ºÎ¿¡¼­ ¾òÀº ½Äµµ pH °Ë»ç °èÃøÄ¡¸¦ ºñ±³ Æò°¡ÇÏ°íÀÚ º» ¿¬±¸¸¦
ÇÏ¿´´Ù.

´ë»ó ¹× ¹æ¹ý : 1997³â 7¿ùºÎÅÍ 1998³â 12¿ù±îÁö Á¶¼±ÀÇ´ë º´¿ø ¼Ò¾Æ°ú¿¡¼­ ½Äµµ¿ª·ù°¡ ÀÇ
½ÉµÇ¾î ³»¿øÇÑ È¯¾Æ46¸íÀ» ´ë»óÀ¸·Î 18¡­24½Ã°£ µ¿¾È ½ÄµµÀÇ »óºÎ¿Í ÇϺΠµÎ ºÎÀ§¿¡¼­ µ¿½Ã
¿¡ ½Äµµ pH¸¦ ÃøÁ¤ÇÏ¿´´Ù. º´Àû ¿ª·ùÀÇ ±âÁØÀº 95¹éºÐÀ§¼ö ÀÌ»óÀÇ ¿ª·ùÁöÇ¥¸¦ º´Àû ¿ª·ù·Î
Á¤ÀÇÇÏ¿´´Ù.

°á°ú : 1) ¿øÀ§ºÎ º´Àû À§½Äµµ¿ª·ù¸¦ º¸ÀΠȯÀÚ±º(group¥°)Àº 24¸íÀ¸·Î Æò±Õ¿¬·ÉÀÌ 36.7¡¾
12°³¿ùÀ̾úÀ¸¸ç, ¿øÀ§ºÎ »ý¸®Àû À§½Äµµ ¿ª·ù¸¦ º¸ÀÎ ´ëÁ¶±º(group¥±)Àº 22¸íÀ¸·Î Æò±Õ¿¬·É
ÀÌ 31.4¡¾19°³¿ùÀ̾ú´Ù. °¡Àå ÈçÇÑ Áõ»óÀº ±¸Åä¿Í ¿ª·ù¿´À¸¸ç Àç¹ß¼º ÈíÀμº Æó·Å, ¼Ó ¾²¸²,
õ½Ä µîÀ̾ú´Ù. 2) ȯÀÚ±º¿¡¼­ ±ÙÀ§ºÎ¿Í ¿øÀ§ºÎÀÇ 24½Ã°£ ½Äµµ pH °Ë»çÀÇ ¼ºÀûÀ» ºñ±³Çϸé
ÃÖÀå ¿ª·ù½Ã°£À» Á¦¿ÜÇÏ°í pH 4.0 ÀÌÇÏÀÎ ½Ã°£ÀÇ ¹éºÐÀ², ÃÑ ¿ª·ùȽ¼ö, 5ºÐ ÀÌ»ó Áö¼ÓµÈ ¿ª
·ùȽ¼ö, score µîÀÇ Ç׸ñ¿¡¼­ Åë°èÇÐÀûÀ¸·Î ÀÇÀÇ ÀÖ´Â Â÷À̸¦ º¸¿´´Ù(p<0.01). ¿øÀ§ºÎ¿Í ±Ù
À§ºÎÀÇ pH °Ë»ç ¼ºÀûÀ» ºñ±³ÇØ º¸¾ÒÀ» ¶§ ÃÖÀå ¿ª·ù½Ã°£°ú ÃÑ ¿ª·ùȽ¼ö¿¡¼­ »ó°ü°è¼ö°¡ °¢
°¢ 0.646°ú 0.451·Î ³ôÀº »ó°ü°ü°è°¡ ÀÖ¾ú´Ù. 3) ´ëÁ¶±º¿¡¼­ ±ÙÀ§ºÎ¿Í ¿øÀ§ºÎÀÇ 24½Ã°£ pH
°Ë»ç°á°ú¸¦ ºñ±³ÇØ º¸¾ÒÀ» ¶§, ¸ðµç Ç׸ñ¿¡¼­ À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ¾ø¾ú´Ù(P.0.05).

°á·Ð : ±ÙÀ§ºÎ À§½Äµµ ¿ª·ù´Â ¿øÀ§ºÎ ¿ª·ù¿Ü¿¡µµ Áß·Â, ½Äµµ üºÎÀÇ ¿îµ¿´É·Â¿¡ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹Þ
Àº °ÍÀ¸·Î »ý°¢µÇ¸ç À§½Äµµ ¿ª·ù ȯ¾Æ ƯÈ÷ Àç¹ß¼º È£Èí±â Áõ»óÀ» º¸ÀÌ´Â °æ¿ì¿¡´Â ÀÌÁßä
³Î ½Äµµ pH ÃøÁ¤°Ë»ç°¡ ÇÊ¿äÇÒ °ÍÀ¸·Î »ý°¢µÈ´Ù.

Purpose : The aim of this study was to determine how much acid exposure would
occur in the proximal esophagus, both in normal and in patients with abnormal distal
esophageal acid exposure.

Methods : Fourty-six patients with suspected GER were classified into two groups, 24
patients with pathological distal reflux(group¥°); 22 patients with normal distal
reflux(group¥±). The ambulatory dual-probe esophageal pH monitoring was performed
for 18-24hr. The abnormal reflux was defined when the percent of time that pH was
below 4.0 exceeded the 95th percentile of normal value.

Results : The siginficant differences between distal and proximal esophageal pH
recordings in group I persisted for all parameters except for the longest episode, but
didn¡¯t persist in group ¥±. At the distal esophageal site, the median percent time with
pH<4.0 in group I was 19.3 and significantly higher than at proximal site. Half of
patients with pathological distal reflux also had proximal acid reflux. Correlation
coefficients between the distal and proximal esophageal sites in group I of the number
of reflux episodes and time of the longest episode were 0.451 and 0.646 respectively.

Conclusion : The 50 percent of patients with pathological distal acid reflux also had
abnormal acid exposure in the proximal esophageal site. Therefore, we recommand
simultaneous pH recordings from dual probe esophageal sites in children with
gastroesophageal reflux.

Å°¿öµå

Gastroesophageal reflux disease; Ambulatory dual-probe pH monitoring;

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

  

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI
KoreaMed
KAMS