Browsing by Author "Nazli O."

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Effects of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy at different stages of pregnancy in the rabbit
    (Mary Ann Liebert Inc., 1997) Gümüş B.; Lekili M.; Kandiloǧlu A.R.; Işisaǧ A.; Temeltaş G.; Nazli O.; Büyüksu C.
    Although SWL is now the most common treatment modality for urinary tract stone disease, it is not regarded as a safe method for pregnant patients because of its potential harmful effects on fetus. Using a rabbit model, we investigated whether SWL might cause fetal injury when administered at various developmental stages. Two groups of pregnant rabbits were given 1000 shockwaves either early or late in the gestational period. Time-matched controls did not receive shockwaves. After spontaneous labor, all newborn rabbits were counted, weighted, and measured, and specimens were taken from organs and examined histopathologically. The numbers, weights, and diameters of the newborns in each group were similar. There was no notable histopathologic finding in the heart and brain specimens of any of the newborns, whereas noticeable congestion and multiple focal intraparanchymal microhemorrhages were found in lungs, livers, and kidneys of the animals that had been exposed to shockwaves early in gestation. In conclusion, this study shows that SWL is not a safe treatment in early pregnancy.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    EVect of lisinopril on renal tissue damage in unilateral ureteral obstruction in rats
    (2012) Karabuga Ä.; Akbay K.; Turna B.; Vatansever H.S.; Altay B.; Güzel E.; Uluer E.T.; Ustun G.; Ekren F.; Nazli O.; Muftuoglu S.; Apaydin E.
    In this study, it was aimed to investigate apoptosis in renal injury and the eVect of lisinopril in rat model, which constitute unilateral ureteral obstruction. The retroperitoneal ureter was ligated with a 4.0 silk for the experimental model of ureteral obstruction in Wistar albino rats. Untreated group (n = 20) received no treatment. For the lisinopril-treated group (n = 20), 20 mg/kg/day of drug was given orally. Ultrastructural diVerences were analyzed using electron microscopic technique; apoptotic distribution was analyzed using the TUNEL method. After electron microscopic evaluation, on the 4th and 14th day in the untreated group, edema in the glomeruli, loss of microvillus and apoptotic cells in proximal tubule cells and sclerosis in the glomeruli were detected. On the 4th day in the lisinopril-treated group, the kidney was ultrastructurally normal and a less number of apoptotic cells were only observed on the 14th day. On light microscopic examination on the 4th and 14th day in the untreated group, while the glomeruli were normal in structure, the boundary of the proximal tubule was disrupted and some picnotic cells in both the proximal and collecting tubules were observed. In both 4th and 14th day of the lisinopril-treated group, kidney showed normal structure, although in some places picnotic cells in the collecting tubules were observed. In conclusion, lisinopril was eVective and it may prevent early renal damage in the direct obstruction model. © Springer-Verlag 2011.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Nationwide prospective audit for the evaluation of appendicitis risk prediction models in adults: Right iliac fossa treatment (RIFT) - Turkey
    (Oxford University Press, 2024) Yalcinkaya A.; Yalcinkaya A.; Balci B.; Keskin C.; Erkan I.; Yildiz A.; Kamer E.; Leventoglu S.; Caglikulekci M.; Zarbaliyev E.; Sevmis M.; Ulgen Y.; Altinel Y.; Meric S.; Akbas A.; Hacim N.A.; Vartanoglu Aktokmanyan T.; Aktimur Y.E.; Calikoglu F.; Gullu H.F.; Durma A.G.; Acar S.; Ciftci E.; Balik E.; Kulle C.B.; Ozata I.H.; Tufekci T.; Tatar C.; Sevinc M.M.; Sevik H.; Ertürk C.; Kiraz I.N.; Ozben V.; Aytac E.; Aliyeva Z.; Mutlu A.U.; Tanal M.; Celayir M.F.; Bozkurt E.; Yetkin S.G.; Ergin E.; Attaallah W.; Uprak T.K.; Omak A.; Simsek O.; Bozkurt M.A.; Kara Y.; Bozdag E.; Yirgin H.; Ozcan A.; Okkabaz N.; Ozdenkaya Y.; Haksal M.C.; Pekuz C.K.; Duru S.; Sivrikoz E.; Ozdemir Y.; Tan N.; Yarbug Karayali F.; Taghiyeva A.; Tirnova I.; Erenler Bayraktar I.; Bayraktar O.; Emsal E.Z.; Dalkilic M.I.; Yesiltas M.; Tok H.; Karakas D.O.; Pusane A.; Demirer A.I.; Sahin H.B.; Gok A.F.K.; Bozkurt H.A.; Yildirim M.; Uzunyolcu G.; Yanar H.T.; Ergun S.; Kutluk F.; Uludag S.S.; Zengin A.K.; Ozcelik M.F.; Sanli A.N.; Altuntas Y.E.; Memisoglu E.; Sari R.; Akdogan O.; Kucuk H.F.; Ozkan O.F.; Ulgur H.S.; Kirkan E.F.; Yuksekdag S.; Rencuzogullari A.; Aktas M.K.; Aba M.; Demirel A.O.; Eray I.C.; Aydogan B.; Cetinkunar S.; Yener K.; Sozutek A.; Irkorucu O.; Bayrak M.; Altintas Y.; Alabaz O.; Atasever A.; Erdogrul G.; Kupeli A.H.; Muhammedoglu B.; Kokdas S.; Kaya M.; Uysal E.; Yildirim A.C.; Zeren S.; Ekici M.F.; Algin M.C.; Kucuk G.O.; Eraslan H.; Aybar E.; Polat S.; Ceylan A.; Isik O.; Kural S.; Aktas A.; Bakar B.; Uzunoglu M.Y.; Gulcu B.; Ozturk E.; Devay A.O.; Taspinar E.; Balcin O.; Aksoy F.; Garip G.; Yalkin O.; Iflazoglu N.; Yigit D.; Kaya R.B.; Ugur M.; Kilic E.; Dedemoglu A.; Arslan R.E.; Temiz M.; Aydin C.; Demirli Atici S.; Kaya T.; Ozturk S.; Calik B.; Kilinc G.; Acar T.; Acar N.; Cengiz F.; Ureyen O.; Tan S.; Ilhan E.; Turk Y.; Durak A.T.; Yilmaz M.; Mercan M.; Atci R.; Sokmen S.; Bisgin T.; Egeli T.; Yildirim Y.; Safak T.; Celik K.; Yilmaz E.M.; Kirnap M.; Demirkiran A.E.; Sekerci U.U.; Karacan E.; Bilgic E.; Ozmen M.M.; Guldogan C.E.; Gundogdu E.; Moran M.; Erol T.; Dincer H.A.; Kirimtay B.; Yilmaz S.; Cennet O.; Yildiz A.; Sahin C.; Akyol C.; Koc M.A.; Ersoz S.; Turhan A.; Konca C.; Tezcaner T.; Erkent M.; Aydin O.; Avci T.; Altiner S.; Osmanov I.; Emral A.C.; Cetinkaya G.; Lapsekili E.; Sakca M.; Cimen S.; Ozen D.; Kozan E.B.; Dogan L.; Haberal E.; Kayhan O.; Aksel B.; Karabacak H.; Azili C.; Yazici F.; Apaydin M.; Kaya I.O.; Cetinkaya E.; Akin T.; Gunes G.; Turap H.; Aslan D.; Demirbag A.E.; Bolukbasi B.; Karaca B.E.; Ozturk E.; Ozeller E.; Kayacan G.S.; Borcek A.O.; Ece I.; Yormaz S.; Colak B.; Calisir A.; Sahin M.; Arslan K.; Hasirci I.; Ulutas M.E.; Metin S.H.; Gultekin F.A.; Ozkan Z.; Ilhan O.; Gundogdu T.; Liman R.K.; Kanat B.H.; Aydin A.; Sungurtekin U.; Ozgen U.; Aykota M.R.; Altintoprak F.; Gonullu E.; Cakmak G.; Dulger U.C.; Mantoglu B.; Demir H.; Akin E.; Eroz E.; Nazli O.; Dere O.; Dadasoglu M.A.; Kara E.; Tutcu S.; Solak I.; Gencer I.; Dalkiran A.; Sevinc B.; Karahan O.; Damburaci N.; Sari E.; Akay T.; Calta A.F.; Ozdemir A.; Ohri N.; Ermis I.; Bozbiyik O.; Ozdemir M.; Goktepe B.; Demir B.; Kilincarslan O.; Gunduz U.R.; Olcum M.; Dincer O.I.; Cakir R.C.; Dinc B.; Sahin E.; Uludag E.; Arslan Y.; Posteki G.; Oktay A.; Tatar O.C.; Guler S.A.; Utkan N.Z.; Tayar S.; Copelci Y.; Kartal M.; Kalayci T.; Yeni M.; Buyukkasap A.C.; Vural S.; Kesicioglu T.; Aydin I.; Gulmez M.; Saracoglu C.; Topcu O.; Kurt A.; Soylu S.; Kurt B.; Serin M.; Basceken S.I.; Gundes E.; Savda M.; Balkan A.Z.A.; Yildiz M.N.; Uzunkoy A.; Karaca E.; Berkan A.; Isik A.; Yildiz Y.A.; Ergul Z.; Yasar N.F.; Badak B.; Ozen A.; Velipasaoglu M.; Ure I.
    Background: Appendicitis is the most prevalent surgical emergency. The negative appendicectomy rate and diagnostic uncertainty are important concerns. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of current appendicitis risk prediction models in patients with acute right iliac fossa pain. Methods: A nationwide prospective observational study was conducted, including all consecutive adult patients who presented with right iliac fossa pain. Diagnostic, clinical and negative appendicectomy rate data were recorded. The Alvarado score, Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR), Raja Isteri Pengiran Anak Saleha Appendicitis (RIPASA) and Adult Appendicitis Score systems were calculated with collected data to classify patients into risk categories. Diagnostic value and categorization performance were evaluated, with use of risk category-based metrics including 'true positive rate' (percentage of appendicitis patients in the highest risk category), 'failure rate' (percentage of patients with appendicitis in the lowest risk category) and 'categorization resolution' (true positive rate/failure rate). Results: A total of 3358 patients from 84 centres were included. Female patients were less likely to undergo surgery than men (71.5% versus 82.5% respectively; relative risk 0.866, 95% c.i. 0.834 to 0.901, P < 0.001); with a three-fold higher negative appendicectomy rate (11.3% versus 4.1% respectively; relative risk 2.744, 95% c.i. 2.047 to 3.677, P < 0.001). Ultrasonography was utilized in 56.8% and computed tomography in 75.2% of all patients. The Adult Appendicitis Score had the best diagnostic performance for the whole population; however, only RIPASA was significant in men. All scoring systems were successful in females patients, but Adult Appendicitis Score had the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve value. The RIPASA and the Adult Appendicitis Score had the best categorization resolution values, complemented by their exceedingly low failure rates in both male and female patients. Alvarado and AIR had extremely high failure rates in men. Conclusion: The negative appendicectomy rate was low overall, but women had an almost three-fold higher negative appendicectomy rate despite lower likelihood to undergo surgery. The overuse of imaging tests, best exemplified by the 75.2% frequency of patients undergoing computed tomography, may lead to increased costs. Risk-scoring systems such as RIPASA and Adult Appendicitis Score appear to be superior to Alvarado and AIR. © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Foundation Ltd.