Browsing by Author "Gurbuz H."

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in major orthopaedic surgery: A multicenter, prospective, observational study; [Majör ortopedik cerrahilerde venöz tromboemboli profilaksisi: Çokmerkezli, prospektif, gözlem çalışması]
    (Turkish Association of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 2008) Altintas F.; Gurbuz H.; Erdemli B.; Atilla B.; Ustaoglu R.G.; Ozic U.; Savk O.; Bayram H.; Memik R.; Akgun I.; Gogus A.; Pestilci F.; Konal A.; Argun M.; Ozturk I.; Dabak N.; Bilgen O.F.; Serin E.; Onder C.; Simsek A.; Tozun R.; Kinik H.
    Objectives: We investigated risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE), prophylaxis measures employed, and incidence of symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) in patients undergoing major orthopaedic surgery (MOS). Methods: An open, multicenter, prospective, observational study was conducted in 21 medical centers, comprising 899 patients. Of these, 316 patients (35.2%) underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA), 328 patients (36.5%) underwent total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and 255 patients (28.4%) underwent surgery for hip fractures (HF). Pharmacologic prophylaxis was employed in all the patients. Results: Risk factors for VTE were seen in 73.2% of the patents, the most common being obesity (72%) and prolonged immobilization (36.3%). Low-molecular-weight heparin (91.1%) and fondaparinux (8.9%) were used for prophylaxis, which was short-term in 273 patients (30.4%) and long-term in 626 patients (69.6%). Mechanical prophylaxis was performed with compression stockings in 610 patients (67.9%) and by intermittent pneumatic compression in 67 patients (7.5%). During three-months of follow-up, symptomatic DVT and PE were seen in eight (0.9%) and four patients (0.4%), respectively. Mortality occurred in 10 patients (1.1%). Complications of major and minor bleeding were seen in eight (0.9%) and 40 (4.5%) patients, respectively. Conclusion: Effective VTE prophylaxis is associated with low risk of clinically apparent DVT and PE in MOS. © 2008 Turkish Association of Orthopaedics and Traumatology.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Comparison of artificial neural network and fuzzy logic approaches for the prediction of in-cylinder pressure in a spark ignition engine
    (American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), 2020) Solmaz O.; Gurbuz H.; Karacor M.
    In first stage, a machine learning (ML) was performed to predict in-cylinder pressure using both fuzzy logic (FL) and artificial neural networks (ANN) depending on the results of experimental studies in a spark ignition (SI) engine. In the ML phase, the experimental in-cylinder pressure data of SI engine was used. SI engine was operated at stoichiometric air-fuel mixture (u ¼ 1.0) at 1200, 1400, and 1600 rpm engine speeds. Six different ignition timings, ranging from 15 to 45 CA, were used for each engine speed. Correlations (R2) between data from in-cylinder pressure obtained via FL and ANN models and data form experimental in-cylinder pressure were determined. R2 values over 0.995 were obtained at an ML stage of ANN model for all test conditions of the engine. However, R2 values were remained between range of 0.820-0.949 with the FL model for different engine speeds and ignition timings. In the second stage, in-cylinder pressure prediction was performed by using an ANN model for engine operating conditions where no experimental results were obtained. Furthermore, indicated mean effective pressure (IMEP) values were calculated by predicting in-cylinder pressure data for different engine operation conditions, and then compared with experimental IMEP values. The results show that the in-cylinder pressure and IMEP results estimated with the trained ANN model are fairly close to the experimental results. Moreover, it was found that using the trained ANN model, the ignition timing corresponding to the maximum brake torque (MBT) used in the engine management systems and engine studies could be determined with high accuracy. Copyright © 2020 by ASME
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    A view on pediatric airway management: a cross sectional survey study
    (Edizioni Minerva Medica, 2022) Saracoglu A.; Saracoglu K.T.; Sorbello M.; Kurdi R.; Greif R.; Abitagaoglu S.; Akin M.; Aksu A.; Aladag E.; Alagoz A.; Alanoglu Z.; Alicikus Tuncel Z.; Altinisik H.B.; Ambrosoli A.L.; Amella S.; Andrašovský A.; Andreotti A.; Arici A.G.; Armstrong J.; Arslan B.; Ávila E.; Aydogmus I.; Ayhan A.; Ayoglu H.; Ayvat P.; Bakis M.; Basaran B.; Baytar C.; Begec Z.; Belete A.; Belludi R.; Bianco M.C.; Bilgin M.U.; Biricik E.; Brueggeney M.K.; Bunjaku D.; Buyukkocak U.; Catineau J.; Cebrián C.G.; Chinnappa S.M.; Cicekci A.; Corte-Ballester J.; Cuéllar Martínez A.B.; Caglar T.; Calisir F.; Cokay Abut Y.; Delen L.A.; Deligoz O.; Demirgan S.; Distefano R.; Dmytriiev D.; Duarte L.; Ece C.; El-Tahan M.; El-Hatib M.; Erdogan Ari D.; Erkalp K.; Erol D.; Erturk E.; Frada R.; Fuchs A.; Garini E.; Gecici M.E.; Giallongo M.; Gomes C.; Gurbuz H.; Has Selmi N.; Hasani A.; Hernandez Cera C.; Hilker T.; Horatanaruang D.; Huitink J.; Karaaslan P.; Karaveli A.; Karisik M.; Kavas A.D.; Kaya A.; Kendigelen P.; Kilinc G.; Koc S.; Dilmen O.; Kozanhan B.; Kupeli I.; Kuyrukluyildiz U.; Lleshi A.; Loizou M.; Luanpholcharoenchai J.; Martinez V.; Matoshi D.; Maurya I.; Meco B.C.; Michalek P.; Milic M.; Mitre I.; Montealegre F.; Nair A.; Nallbani R.; Ng A.; Oc B.; Ok G.; Olguner C.; Ozkan D.; Oksuz G.; Ozcan M.S.; Ozden E.S.; Ozden Omaygenc D.; Ozer Y.; Ozmenoglu Turker H.; Ozmert S.; Rai E.; Rangappa D.; Roca De Togores A.; Salgado H.; Santos P.; Sari S.; Saritas A.; Saygi Emir N.; Sen B.; Shallik N.; Shamim F.; Shirgoska B.; Silay E.; Sinha T.; Srimueang T.; Sudarshan P.; Sugur T.; Sumer I.; Szucs Z.; Sahin T.; Sanal Bas S.; Tan J.; Tawfik L.; Topal S.; Toy E.; Turan Civraz A.Z.; Unal D.; Ural S.G.; Ustalar Ozgen S.Z.; Uysal H.; Yesildal H.; Yilmaz C.; Yuen V.; Yurt E.; Yuzkat N.; Zdravkovic M.; Isohanni M.
    BACKGROUND: This survey aimed to investigate routine practices and approaches of clinicians on pediatric airway in anesthesia and intensive care medicine. METHODS: A 20-question multiple-choice questionnaire with the possibility to provide open text answers was developed and sent. The survey was sent to the members of European Airway Management Society via a web-based platform. Responses were analyzed thematically. Only the answers from one representative of the pediatric service of each hospital was included into the analysis. RESULTS: Among the members, 143 physicians responded the survey, being anesthesiologists (83.2%), intensivists (11.9%), emergency medicine physicians (2.1%), and (2.8%) pain medicine practitioners. Astraight blade was preferred by 115 participants (80.4%) in newborns, whereas in infants 86 (60.1%) indicated a curved blade and 55 (38.5%) a straight blade. Uncuffed tracheal tube were preferred by 115 participants (80.4%) in newborns, whereas 24 (16.8%) used cuffed tubes. Approximately 2/3 of the participants (89, 62.2%) reported not to use routinely a cuff manometer in their clinical practice, whereas 54 participants (37.8%) use it routinely in pediatric patients. Direct laryngoscopy for routine pediatric tracheal intubation was reported by 127 participants (88.8%), while 16 (11.2%) reported using videolaryngoscopes routinely. Interestingly, 39 (27.3%) had never performed neither videolaryngoscopy nor flexible bronchoscopy in children. These results were significantly less in hospitals with a dedicated pediatric anesthesiologist. CONCLUSIONS: This survey on airway management in pediatric anesthesia revealed that the use of cuffed tubes and the routine monitoring of cuff pressure are rare. In addition, the rate of videolaryngoscopy or flexible optical intubation was low for expected difficult intubation. Our survey highlights the need for properly trained pediatric anesthesiologists working in-line with updated scientific evidence. © 2022 Edizioni Minerva Medica. All rights reserved.