Yazar "Bayram, Salih" seçeneğine göre listele
Listeleniyor 1 - 4 / 4
Sayfa Başına Sonuç
Sıralama seçenekleri
Öğe Adölesan varikosel tedavisinde laparoskopik Palomo yöntemi sonuçlarımız(MEDİTAGEM Ltd. Şti., 2017) Arslan, Serkan; Basuguy, Erol; Zeytun, Hikmet; Arslan, Mehmet Şerif; Aydoğdu, Bahattin; Bayram, Salih; Okur, Mehmet Hanifi; Önen, AbdurrahmanÖz:Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı adölesan yaş grubunda varikosel nedeniyle cerrahi tedavi yapılan hastaların sonuçlarını sunmaktır.Gereç ve Yöntem: Şubat 2012- Şubat 2016 tarihleri arasında varikosel nedeniyle ameliyat edilen hastaların dosyaları geriye dönük olarak incelendi. Hastalar, demografik verileri, klinik şikâyetleri, fizik muayene bulguları ve radyolojik olarak skrotal renkli doppler ultrasonografi (US) sonuçları ile değerlendirildi. Varikosel, Hoekstra ve ark. yaptığı dilate ven çapının değerlendirildiği sınıflamaya göre evrelendirildi. Semptomatik evre 2-3 varikosel ve testis boyutlarında küçülme olan hastalara cerrahi yapıldı. Tedavi sonuçları ve komplikasyonları kaydedildi. Bulgular: Yaş ortalaması 13±2 olan 14 hasta değerlendirildi. Hastaların tamamı skrotumda ağrı ve şişlik şikayetleri ile başvurmuşlardı. Hastaların tümünde varikosel sol tarafta idi. Hastaların 7'si (%50) evre 2, 7'si (%50) evre 3 idi. Cerrahi yöntem olarak laparoskopik Palomo yöntemi uygulandı. Ortalama ameliyat süresi 28±4 dakika. Ameliyat sırasında hiçbir hastada komplikasyon yaşanmadı. Ortalama hastanede kalış süresi 2 gün idi. Ortalama ameliyat sonrası izlem 12±9 ay idi. Kontrolde hastaların 11'inde varikosel düzeldi, 3 hastada ise evre 3'ten evre 1'e geriledi. Nüks görülmedi. Sadece bir hastada (%7) hidrosel gelişti. Sonuç: Laparoskopik Palomo yöntemini yüksek başarı, düşük komplikasyon oranı, daha az ağrı, kısa sürede sosyal yaşama dönüş, iyi kozmetik sonuç gibi faydaları sebebiyle avantajlı bir yöntemdir. Ayrıca single port laparoskopide ise eldiven yardımı ile hazırlanan torakoport düşük maliyet ve kolay ulaşılabilir olması sebebiyle tercih edilebilir.Öğe Comparison of single-incision laparoscopic percutaneous and cystoscope forceps assisted morgagni hernia repair techniques(W.B. Saunders, 2024) Okur, Mehmet Hanifi; Aydoğdu, Bahattin; Azizoğlu, Mustafa; Arslan, Serkan; Bayram, Salih; Basuguy, Erol; 0000-0002-9217-423X; 0000-0002-6720-1515; 0000-0003-2858-3984; 0000-0002-3456-9217; 0000-0002-4360-6892Objective: Our goal was to compare single-incision laparoscopic percutaneous and cystoscope forceps-assisted Morgagni hernia repair techniques. Materials and methods: A total of 40 patients were allocated to two groups, each with 20 patients. Group 1: Single incision (port) laparoscopic surgical percutaneous Morgagni hernia repair (with a 5 mm Storz laparoscopic scope entered through the umbilicus). Group 2: Single incision (port) laparoscopic surgical percutaneous Morgagni hernia repair (with an 11 Fr [3.6 mm] cystoscope entered through the umbilicus + using forceps + sac plication, and sac cauterization). In Group 1; the sac was not removed. In group 2; we advanced the forceps through the cystoscope, caught the sac, pushed the needle through the sac, plicated the sac, and then cauterized the sac with Bugbee electrode. Results: Of the 40 patients, 70 % (n = 28) were male. The symptoms at admission included repeated chest infections (40 %), dyspnea (30 %), vomiting (22 %), and abdominal pain (22 %). No difference was found between groups in terms of age, gender symptomatology, or associated anomalies. The operation time was shorter in group 2 compared to group 1 (p < 0.05; 25 min vs 40 min). Although there was one recurrence in Group 1, no recurrence was reported in Group 2. The recurrence incidence did not differ between groups (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Cystoscope-assisted repair of Morgagni hernia was found to be superior in terms of safety and shorter operation time. Level of evidence: Type III. Type of the study: Retrospective study.Öğe Laparoscopic versus open portoenterostomy for treatment of biliary atresia: a meta-analysis(Springer Science and Business Media, 2023) Okur, Mehmet Hanifi; Aydoǧdu, Bahattin; Azizoǧlu, Mustafa; Bilici, Salim; Bayram, Salih; Salık, FikretObjective: Our goal was to compare laparoscopic portoenterostomy versus open portoenterostomy for the treatment of biliary atresia. Materials and methods: Using the databases EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane, we carried out a thorough literature search up to 2022. Studies comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for the treatment of biliary atresia were included. Results: Twenty-three studies comparing laparoscopic portoenterostomy (LPE) (n = 689) and open portoenterostomy (OPE) (n = 818) were considered appropriate for meta-analysis. Age at surgery time was lower in the LPE group than OPE group (I2 = 84%), (WMD − 4.70, 95% CI − 9.14 to − 0.26; P = 0.04). Significantly decreased blood loss (I2 = 94%), (WMD − 17.85, 95% CI − 23.67 to − 12.02; P < 0.00001) and time to feed were found in the laparoscopic group (I2 = 97%), (WMD − 2.88, 95% CI − 4.71 to − 1.04; P = 0.002). Significantly decreased operative time was found in the open group (I2 = 85%), (WMD 32.52, 95% CI 15.65–49.39; P = 0.0002). Weight, transfusion rate, overall complication rate, cholangitis, time to drain removal, length of stay, jaundice clearance, and two-year transplant-free survival were not significantly different across the groups. Conclusions: Laparoscopic portoenterostomy provides advantages regarding operative bleeding and the time to begin feeding. No differences in remain characteristics. Based on the data presented to us by this meta-analysis, LPE is not superior to OPE in terms of overall results.Öğe A rare case with multiple urinary anomalies associated with urethral duplication: Distal hypospadias, posterior urethral valve, left vesicoureteral reflux, and right renal agenesis(2019) Bayram, Salih; Basuguy, ErolUrethral duplication is a rare congenital malformation with multiple clinical manifestations. Here, wepresent a case involving a boy with hypospadiac urethral duplication and multiple congenitalanomalies. The patient had additional anomalies including a posterior urethral valve, leftvesicoureteral reflux and right renal agenesis. This case is discussed in terms of the type of urethralduplication and the importance of additional anomalies.
