Wos Açık Erişimli Yayınlar

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/11727/10754

Browse

Filters

2020 - 20212

Settings

Author: search.filters.author.Dogan Durdag, Gulsensearch.filters.applied.f.rights: search.filters.rights.info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Feasibility of Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) in Ovarian Cancer During COVID-19 Pandemic
    (2021) Ayhan, Ali; Yilmaz Baran, Safak; Vatansever, Dogan; Dogan Durdag, Gulsen; Celik, Husnu; Taskiran, Cagatay; Akilli, Huseyin; 0000-0001-5874-7324; 0000-0002-5240-8441; 33858953; AAX-3230-2020
    Objective This study aims to evaluate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and related restrictions on patients who underwent cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for ovarian cancer. Methods We retrospectively evaluated ovarian cancer patients who underwent HIPEC following complete cytoreductive surgery performed during the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in three different centers specializing in gynecological oncology. All patients who underwent cytoreduction plus HIPEC for a primary, interval, and recurrent surgery were evaluated. Primary outcomes was postoperative 30-day morbidity and mortality. The secondary outcome was infection of patient and/or related staff with COVID-19 during the perioperative or early postoperative period. Results We performed a total of 35 HIPEC procedures during the pandemic: 15 (42.9%) patients underwent primary/interval surgery, while 20 (57.1%) patients had recurrent disease. Grade 3-4 complications occurred in one patient (2.9%) (chronic renal failure), while mortality did not occur in any patient. Neither the patients nor related staff were infected with the coronavirus during the perioperative or early postoperative period. One patient, who was diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia on postoperative day 80 died from the infection. Another patient died on postoperative day 85 due to progressive ovarian cancer, a disorder in vital functions, and organ failure. Conclusion HIPEC during the COVID-19 pandemic seems a safe and feasible procedure, with acceptable morbidity and mortality rates. Careful selection of patients is important and precautions should be taken before the procedure.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Single- or double-layer uterine closure techniques following cesarean: A randomized trial
    (2020) Yilmaz Baran, Safak; Kalayci, Hakan; Dogan Durdag, Gulsen; Yetkinel, Selcuk; Alemdaroglu, Songul; Cok, Tayfun; Bulgan Kilicdag, Esra; 0000-0002-5064-5267; 0000-0002-2165-9168; 0000-0003-4335-6659; 0000-0002-0942-9108; 0000-0002-7854-2921; 0000-0001-5874-7324; 33029804; AAI-9594-2021; AAL-1530-2021; AAI-8400-2021; AAK-8872-2021; A-8208-2008; ABF-6439-2020
    Introduction Cesarean deliveries are commonly performed throughout the world. Although the uterine closure technique following this procedure may influence how the uterine scar heals, there is insufficient evidence for choosing the appropriate technique and so preventing long-term negative consequences. This prospective, randomized study examined the effects of single- and double-layer uterine closure techniques on uterine scar healing following cesarean delivery. Material and methods This study assessed a total of 282 women aged 18-45 years who were in gestational weeks 24-41 of singleton pregnancies. None had previously undergone uterine surgeries. These participants completed their first cesarean deliveries at the time of study and were randomized into the following two treatment groups: single-layer closure with locking and double-layer closure with locking in the first layer, but not in the second layer (NCT03629028). However, the decidua was not included for treatment in either group. Participants were evaluated at 6-9 months after cesarean section by saline infusion sonohysterography to assess cesarean delivery scar defects. These procedures were conducted by experienced sonographers who were not aware of the uterine closure technique. Results Of the 225 final participants, 109 received the single-layer closure technique, whereas 116 received the double-layer technique. The niche rates were 37% (n = 40) for the single-layer group and 45.7% (n = 53) for the double-layer group (P = .22, relative risk 1.4, 95% CI = 0.8-4.4). Conclusions The single- and double-layer closure techniques did not produce different impacts on uterine scar niche development.