http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : Recep Çelik (검색결과 2 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
Hayati Aygün,Albert Çakar,Nergiz Hüseyinoğlu,Urfettin Hüseyinoğlu,Recep Çelik 대한척추외과학회 2014 Asian Spine Journal Vol.8 No.5
Study Design: Eighty-four patients who had been treated for degenerative spinal diseases between January 2006 and June 2009 were reviewed retrospectively. Purpose: We aimed to compare the clinical and radiologic findings of manual workers who underwent posterolateral fusion (PLF) or posterior interbody fusion (PLIF) involving fusion of 3 or more levels of the spine. Overview of Literature: Previous studies have concluded that there is no significant difference between the clinical outcome of PLF and PLIF techniques. Methods: After standard decompression, 42 patients underwent PLF and the other 42 patients underwent PLIF. Radiologic findings, Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores, and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were assessed preoperatively and at 6-month intervals postoperatively and return to work times/rates were assessed for 48 months. Results: Patients who underwent PLF had significantly shorter surgical time and less blood loss. According to the 48-month clinical results, ODI and VAS scores were reduced significantly in the two groups, but the PLIF group showed better results than the PLF group at the last follow-up. Return to work rate was 63% in the PLF group and 87% in the PLIF group. Union rates were found to be 81% and 89%, respectively, after 24 months (p =0.154). Conclusions: PLIF is a preferable technique with respect to stability and correction, but the result does not depend on only the fusion rates. Discectomy and fusion mass localization should be considered for achieving clinical success with the fusion technique. Before performing PLIF, the association of the long operative time and high blood loss with mortality and morbidity should be taken into consideration, particularly in the elderly and disabled patients.
-
Sari Ahmet,Ekinci Osman,Saraçoğlu Kemal Tolga,Balık Recep,Aslan Mesut,Balık Yelda,Önal Ceren,Aslan Murat,Cevher Semra,Parmaksız Aylin,Vatansever Şule,Çicek Münire Canan,Ayan Özge Sayın,Şensöz Çelik Ga 대한의학회 2023 Journal of Korean medical science Vol.38 No.29
Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is often a mild disease, usually manifesting with respiratory complaints, and is sometimes mortal due to multiple organ failure. Hyperinflammation is a known COVID-19 component and is associated with organ dysfunction, disease severity and mortality. Controlling hyperinflammatory response is crucial in determining treatment direction. An important agent in providing this control is corticosteroids. This study aimed to determine whether dexamethasone and methylprednisolone, doses, administration time and duration in COVID-19 treatment are associated with improved treatment outcomes. Methods: This retrospective multicenter study was conducted with participation of 6 healthcare centers which collected data by retrospectively examining files of 1,340 patients admitted to intensive care unit due to COVID-19 between March 2020 and September 2021, diagnosed with polymerase chain reaction (+) and/or clinically and radiologically. Results: Mortality in the pulse methylprednisolone group was statistically significantly higher than that in the other 3 groups. Mortality was higher in older patients with comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney failure, coronary artery disease, and dementia. Pulse and mini-pulse steroid doses were less effective than standard methylprednisolone and dexamethasone doses, pulse steroid doses being associated with high mortality. Standard-dose methylprednisolone and dexamethasone led to similar effects, but standard dose methylprednisolone was more effective in severe patients who required mechanical ventilation (MV). Infection development was related to steroid treatment duration, not cumulative steroid dose. Conclusion: Corticosteroids are shown to be beneficial in critical COVID-19, but the role of early corticosteroids in mild COVID-19 patients remains unclear. The anti-inflammatory effects of corticosteroids may have a positive effect by reducing mortality in severe COVID-19 patients. Although dexamethasone was first used for this purpose, methylprednisolone was found to be as effective at standard doses. Methylprednisolone administered at standard doses was associated with greater PaO2/FiO2 ratios than dexamethasone, especially in the severe group requiring MV. High dose pulse steroid doses are closely associated with mortality and standard methylprednisolone dose is recommended.
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
