Yazar "Risteski, Toni" seçeneğine göre listele

Listeleniyor 1 - 2 / 2
  • Küçük Resim
    Öğe
    Alisklamp versus Conventional Dorsal Slit Circumcision: A Multicentric Randomized Controlled Trial
    (Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI), 2024) Azizoğlu, Mustafa; Risteski, Toni; Klyuev, Sergey
    Background: There are numerous methods of circumcision performed worldwide, typically classified into two main groups: conventional surgical techniques and various device-assisted techniques. Each method has its own advantages, limitations, and potential complications. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of the Alisklamp technique versus the dorsal slit technique in male circumcision procedures. Method: This multicenter RCT compared the dorsal slit and Alisklamp techniques for circumcision, assessing patient demographics and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. All patients, under local anesthesia via dorsal penile nerve block, were discharged on the same day and followed up at 24–48 h, 1 week, and 1 month. Results: A total of 180 patients enrolled, and 166 patients were included. The study compared postoperative outcomes between the Alisklamp (AK) and dorsal slit (DS) circumcision techniques in 166 patients. Key findings included significantly higher penile edema in the DS group (19%) compared to the AK group (2.4%) (p < 0.001), with severe edema occurring only in the DS group. Wound gaping was more common in the AK group (8.3%) compared to the DS group (1.2%) (p = 0.030). Skin tunnels were observed only in the DS group (9.5%) (p = 0.004). There were no significant differences in nausea, vomiting, bleeding, necrosis, infection, wound dehiscence, chordee, rotational anomalies, or secondary phimosis between the groups. Mean operation time was lower in the AK group than the DS group (7.8 min vs. 15.5 min; p < 0.001). Conclusions: The Alisklamp technique is recommended as the preferred method for circumcision because it minimizes complications, shortens the procedure time, and is easy to apply. © 2024 by the authors.
  • Küçük Resim Yok
    Öğe
    Comparing Loop and Divided Colostomy for Anorectal Malformation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    (W.B. Saunders, 2025) Gerçel, Gonca; Azizoğlu, Mustafa; Karakaş, Esra; Risteski, Toni
    Introduction: The optimal type of colostomy for patients with anorectal malformations (ARM) remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes of loop colostomies (LC) versus divided colostomies (DC) in patients with ARM. Methods: After review registration (PROSPERO: CRD42024513335), we searched multiple databases for comparative studies on LCs and DCs in patients with ARMs. Gray literature was sought. The complications examined included stoma prolapse, urinary tract infection (UTI), skin excoriation, stoma retraction, parastomal hernia, wound infection rate, and stoma stricture. Three reviewers independently assessed the eligibility and quality of the included studies. Meta-analysis of selected complications was performed using Revman 5.4, with p < 0.05 considered significant. Results: Eleven studies were included in the analysis, incorporating a total of 2550 neonates with ARMs, of which 1147 underwent LCs and 1403 underwent DCs. The meta-analysis revealed no significant differences between the two groups in the incidence of stoma prolapse (OR: 1.55, 95 % CI: 0.63 to 3.79; p = 0.34), UTIs (OR: 1.78, 95 % CI: 0.50 to 6.36; p = 0.38), skin excoriation (OR: 1.26, 95 % CI: 0.68 to 2.34; p = 0.46), stoma retraction (OR: 0.79, 95 % CI: 0.09 to 6.64; p = 0.83), parastomal hernia (OR: 0.99, 95 % CI: 0.22 to 4.48; p = 0.99), wound infection (OR: 0.35, 95 % CI: 0.10 to 1.20; p = 0.10), and stoma stricture (OR: 0.70, 95 % CI: 0.22 to 2.18; p = 0.53). Conclusions: The findings suggest that LCs and DCs are viable options for fecal diversion, presenting similar risks and benefits. The choice between these techniques should consider individual patient characteristics and surgical expertise. Type of Study: Meta-analysis. Level of evidence: II. © 2024 Elsevier Inc.