http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
( Kang Nyeong Lee ),( Oh Young Lee ),( Myung-Gyu Choi ),( Chong Il Sohn ),( Kyu Chan Huh ),( Kyung Sik Park ),( Joong Goo Kwon ),( Nayoung Kim ),( Poong-Lyul Rhee ),( Seung-Jae Myung ),( Joon Seong Le 대한소화기기능성질환·운동학회 2014 Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility (JNM Vol.20 No.1
Background/Aims Antispasmodics such as octylonium are widely used to manage irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) symptoms. However, the efficacy and safety of another antispasmodic, tiropramide, remain uncertain. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tiropramide compared with octylonium in patients with IBS. Methods In this multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority trial, 287 patients with IBS (143 receiving tiropramide and 144 octylonium) were randomly allocated to either tiropramide 100 mg or octylonium 20 mg t.i.d (means 3 times a day) for 4 weeks. Primary endpoint was the mean change of abdominal pain from baseline assessed by visual analogue scales (VAS) score after 4 weeks of treatment. Secondary endpoints were the changes in abdominal pain from baseline at week 2 and in abdominal discomfort at weeks 2 and 4, using VAS scores, patient-reported symptom improvement including stool frequency and consistency, using symptom diaries, IBS-quality of life (IBS-QoL), and depression and anxiety, at week 4. Results The VAS scores of abdominal pain at week 4, were significantly decreased in both tiropramide and octylonium groups, but the change from baseline did not differ between the 2 groups (difference, -0.26 mm; 95% CI, -4.33-3.82; P = 0.901). Abdominal pain and discomfort assessed using VAS scores, diaries, and IBS-QoL were also improved by both treatments, and the changes from baseline did not differ. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the 2 groups, and no severe adverse events involving either drug were observed. Conclusions Tiropramide is as effective as octylonium in managing abdominal pain in IBS, with a similar safety profile. (J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2014;20:113-121)
이강녕 ( Kang Nyeong Lee ),이항락 ( Hang Lak Lee ),윤재훈 ( Jai Hoon Yoon ),조승철 ( Seung Chul Cho ),이오영 ( Oh Young Lee ),윤병철 ( Byung Chul Yoon ),최호순 ( Ho Soon Choi ),함준수 ( Joon Soo Hahm ) 대한소화기학회 2008 대한소화기학회지 Vol.52 No.2
A colon cancer presenting as psoas muscle abscess is very rare. A 27-year-old woman was admitted with abdominal pain, fever, and discomfort on left thigh. She had been administered on anti-tuberculosis medication for colonic tuberculosis since 3 months ago. Abdominal CT scan revealed a mass lesion obstructing the descending colon with an abscess formation within left psoas muscle. We undertook segmental resection of obstructing descending colon after the percutaneous drainage of psoas abscess. The pathologic report was mucinous adenocarcinoma of the colon. We report the first case of colon cancer manifested with psoas abscess in Korea, with the review of literature associated with the correlation of colon cancer and tuberculosis. (Korean J Gastroenterol 2008;52:120-123)
현장 및 실내 측정 탄성파 속도에 근거한 암반평가 기준에 대한 고찰
이강녕(Kang Nyeong Lee),박연준(Yeon Jun Park) 한국암반공학회 2017 터널과지하공간 Vol.27 No.4
이 연구에서는 국내 토목현장에서 수행된 하향식 탄성파탐사 및 굴절법 탄성파탐사 자료(177개)와 시추조사 시료(1,035개)에 대해 연암과 경암(보통암 포함)으로 분류한 후, 건설표준품셈과 지반조사표준품셈의 탄성파속도에 의한 암반분류 기준을 비교하였다. 현장에서의 하향식 탄성파탐사 및 굴절법 탄성파탐사에 의한 탄성파속도는 연암의 경우 1,400∼2,900 m/s의 범위로 건설표준품셈 A그룹(1,200∼1,900 m/s)과 지반조사표준품셈(1,200∼2,500 m/s)의 기준보다 빠르게 나타났으며, 보통암과 경암의 경우 2,300∼3,800 m/s의 범위로 기준범위와 유사하게 나타나는 것으로 나타났다. 실내암석시험에서 구해진 연암과 보통암∼경암의 탄성파속도 또한 현장 탐사 결과와 유사한 경향을 보이는 것으로 나타났다. 암반 탄성파 속도와 품셈간의 상이점을 품셈이 절대적으로 옳다는 관점에서 본다면, 현장 탄성파 속도의 경우 하부지반의 영향을 받아 속도가 빨라지는 것과 실내암석시험의 경우에는 연암구간에서의 시료선별 시 무결암의 선별에 의한 것으로 여길 수 있다. 반대로 상이점의 원인을 품셈에 오류가 있는 것으로 본다면, 품셈상의 지층경계가 점이적이지 않은 뚜렷한 경계가 인위적으로 설정된 점, 지질 양상이 다른 외국의 기준을 그대로 차용하여 사용한다는 점, 품셈상 지층의 탄성파 속도에 대한 독립된 검증이 이루어지지 않은 점 등의 문제가 있음을 알 수 있다. 이 연구에서는 현장에서의 향후 이러한 검증 연구를 제안하며, 널리 쓰이는 품셈에 의한 지층분류에는 내포된 문제가 있음에 대한 인식이 중요하다. Seismic velocities measured from in-situ tests (n=177) and through rock core samples (n=1,035) are reviewed in light of construction standards, widely used standards as a first-hand approximation of rock classification solely based on seismic velocities. In-situ down hole tests and refraction survey for soft rocks showed seismic velocities of 1,400∼2,900 m/s which is faster than those specified in construction standards. For moderate∼ hard rocks, in-situ down hole tests and refraction survey showed 2,300∼3,800 m/s which roughly corresponds with the range specified in the construction standards. A similar trend is also observed for seismic velocities measured from rock core samples. The observed differences between construction standards and seismic velocities can be explained in two ways. If construction standards are correct the observed differences may be explained with seismic velocities affected by underlying fast velocities and also possibly with selection of intact cores for velocity measurement. Alternatively, construction standards may have intrinsic problems, namely artificial discrete boundaries between soft rocks and moderate rocks, application of foreign standards without consideration of geologic setting and lack of independent verification steps. Therefore, we suggest a carefully designed verification studies from a test site. We also suggest that care must be exercised when applying construction standards for the interpretation and accessment of rock mass properties.