Yazar "Okur, Mehmet Hanifi" seçeneğine göre listele
Listeleniyor 1 - 3 / 3
Sayfa Başına Sonuç
Sıralama seçenekleri
Öğe Development of a thoracoscopic model for birth defect esophageal atresia and tracheoesophageal fistula using fresh sheep tissues(John wiley and sons inc, 2025) Azizoğlu, Mustafa; Okur, Mehmet HanifiBackground: This study aimed to develop an esophageal atresia (EA) model using fresh sheep esophagus, trachea, and lungs to simulate a realistic thoracoscopic surgical environment. Methods: A thoracoscopic trainer box was used with fresh sheep tissues (esophagus, trachea, and lungs) to create an EA and tracheoesophageal fistula (TEF) model. The distal esophagus was anastomosed to the trachea, and a bicycle pump was integrated to simulate lung function. Additional components, such as a simulated azygos vein and parietal pleura, enhanced the model's realism for surgical training. Results: The developed EA-TEF model was created in six steps, including pleural dissection, azygos vein control, TEF division, and esophageal anastomosis. The procedure used a thoracoscopic trainer box, sheep tissues, and standard instruments. A bicycle pump simulated lung function, and careful techniques were employed for vein ligation and esophageal anastomosis. After the posterior wall was sutured, an 8 Fr feeding tube was inserted. The total cost of the model was $260, with reusable equipment and a $10 recurring cost for sheep tissues. Conclusions: This study successfully developed a cost-effective and anatomically accurate thoracoscopic model for EA and TEF repair using fresh sheep tissue.Öğe Laparoscopic Versus Conventional Open Congenital Duodenal Obstruction Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis(W.B. Saunders, 2025) Azizoğlu, Mustafa; Kamçı, Tahsin Onat; Klyuev, Sergey; Escolino, Maria; Karakaş, Esra; Gigena, Cecilia; Yüksel, Seçil; Bakır, Ayten Ceren; Okur, Mehmet Hanifi; Shehata, SamehBackground: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery (LS) compared to open surgery (OS) for congenital duodenal obstruction (CDO). Methods: We conducted a literature review to find studies comparing LS and OS in neonates with CDO. A meta-analysis was conducted to systematically compile and compare factors, including surgical duration, time of feeding initiation, hospital length of stay (LOS), and postoperative complications. Results: Eleven studies with 1615 patients (LS: 338, OS: 1277) met inclusion criteria. Operative time was observed to be much shorter in the OS group (I2 = 97%); weighted mean difference (WMD) 60.29; 95% confidence interval (CI): 30.29 to 90.28; p < 0.0001). The LS group had a significantly shorter time to initiate feeding (I2 = 0%; WMD -3.38, 95% CI: −4.35 to −2.41; p < 0.00001), shorter time to full feeding (I2 = 0%; WMD -3.64, 95% CI: −5.06 to −2.22; p < 0.00001), and shorter LOS (I2 = 52%; WMD -3.42, 95% CI: −5.75 to −1.08; p = 0.004). There were no significantly differences in the rates of anastomotic leak (I2 = 24%; OR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.12 to 4.67; p = 0.76), anastomotic stricture (I2 = 0%; OR 1.12, 95% CI: 0.39 to 3.20; p = 0.83), postoperative ileus (I2 = 0%; OR 0.60, 95% CI: 0.21 to 1.74; p = 0.34), and overall complications between the groups (I2 = 59%; OR 0.86, 95% CI: 0.42 to 1.74; p = 0.68). The LS group, however, had a significantly decreased frequency of wound infection (I2 = 0%; OR 0.26, 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.82; p = 0.02). Conclusion: Despite certain limitations in our analysis, the laparoscopic approach was associated with comparable postoperative outcomes. Levels of Evidence: 2a. Type of the Study: Meta analysis. © 2024 Elsevier Inc.Öğe Platelet-rich Plasma as an Adjuvant Therapy to Crystallized Phenol in the Treatment of Pediatric Pilonidal Sinus Disease: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial(W.B. Saunders, 2025) Azizoğlu, Mustafa; Klyuev, Sergey; Kamçı, Tahsin Onat; Okur, Mehmet HanifiObjective: This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) as an adjuvant to crystallized phenol (CP) in treating pediatric pilonidal sinus disease (PSD). Methods: A single-center randomized controlled trial was conducted at Istanbul Esenyurt Hospital. Eighty-seven patients aged 0–18 were randomly assigned to two groups: the CP group (n = 42) and the CP + PRP group (n = 45). Upon arrival at the clinic, patients began a regimen of manual shaving and, if necessary, laser epilation every 6–8 weeks. For those with pilonidal abscesses, incision, drainage, and antibiotics were given. The treatment area was sterilized and numbed with local anesthesia. Hair removal and curettage were performed, followed by the application of crystallized phenol. In CP + PRP group, PRP injections were also administered. The procedure concluded with wound dressing and thorough disinfection. The study was registered https://clinicaltrials.gov/ (NCT06324656). Results: The CP + PRP group demonstrated significantly shorter healing times (19.4 ± 7.88 days) compared to the CP group (30.7 ± 12.9 days) (p < 0.001). The cosmetic score was higher in the CP + PRP group (7.42 ± 1.61) than in the CP group (6.11 ± 1.88, p = 0.001). CP + PRP group had lower VAS scores at measured all-time points after applications (p < 0.05 for each). Complications were comparable between the groups, with no significant differences in bleeding, infections, or skin burns (p > 0.05 for each comparison). No difference was found between groups in terms of total complication rate (p = 0.398). The success rate was higher in CP + PRP group (98%; n = 44) compared to CP group (86%; n = 36) (p = 0.039). Recurrence rates were lower in CP + PRP group (2%; n = 1) than CP group (14%; n = 6) (p = 0.039). Conclusion: The autologous PRP injection in pediatric PSD is safe. The addition of PRP to CP treatment for pediatric PSD significantly improves healing time, cosmetic outcomes, and overall success rates without increasing complication rates. This combined approach offers a promising alternative for effective and efficient treatment of PSD in children. Type of the study: Randomized controlled trial. Level of evidence: Level I © 2024 Elsevier Inc.