WOS

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/11443/932

Browse

Author: search.filters.author.Bayram, Onur

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Minimally invasive versus open surgery for gastric cancer in Turkish population
    (TURKISH SURGICAL ASSOC, 2021-01-01) Agcaoglu, Orhan; Sengun, Berke; Tarcan, Serim; Aytac, Erman; Bayram, Onur; Zenger, Serkan; Benlice, Cigdem; Ozben, Volkan; Balik, Emre; Baca, Bilgi; Hamzaoglu, Ismail; Karahasanoglu, Tayfun; Bugra, Dursun
    Objective: In this study, it was aimed to compare short-term outcomes of minimally invasive and open surgery for gastric cancer in the Turkish population carrying both European and Asian characteristics. Material and Methods: Short-term (30-day) outcomes of the patients undergoing minimally invasive and open gastrectomy with D2 lymphadenectomy for gastric adenocarcinoma between January 2013 and December 2017 were compared. Patient demographics, history of previous abdominal surgery, comorbidities, short-term perioperative outcomes and histopathological results were evaluated between the study groups. Results: There were a total of 179 patients. Fifty (28\%) patients underwent minimally invasive {[}laparoscopic (n= 19) and robotic (n= 31)] and 129 (72\%) patients underwent open surgery. There were no differences between the two groups in terms of age, sex, body mass index and ASA scores. While operative time was significantly longer in the minimally invasive surgery group (p< 0.0001), length of hospital stay and operative morbidity were comparable between the groups. Conclusion: While both laparoscopic and robotic surgery is safe and feasible in terms of short-term outcomes in selected patients, long operating time and increased cost are the major drawbacks of the robotic technique preventing its widespread use.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Dealing with the gray zones in the management of gastric cancer: The consensus statement of the Istanbul Group
    (AVES, 2019-01-01) Aytac, Erman; Aslan, Fatih; Cicek, Bahattin; Erdamar, Sibel; Gurses, Bengi; Guven, Koray; Falay, Okan; Karahasanoglu, Tayfun; Selcukbiricik, Fatih; Selek, Ugur; Atalar, Banu; Balik, Emre; Tozun, Nurdan; Rozanes, Izzet; Arican, Ali; Hamzaoglu, Ismail; Baca, Bilgi; Mandell, Nil Molinas; Saruc, Murat; Goksel, Suha; Demir, Gokhan; Agaoglu, Fulya; Yakicier, Cengiz; Ozbek, Ugur; Ozben, Volkan; Ozyar, Enis; Guner, Ahmet Levent; Er, Ozlem; Kaban, Kerim; Bolukbasi, Yasemin; Bugra, Dursun; Ahishali, Emel; Asian, Fatih; Boz-bas, Aysun; Hamzaoglu, Hulya; Karaman, Ahmet; Kucukmetin, Nurten Turkel; Vardareli, Eser Kutsal; Onder, Fatih Oguz; Sisman, Gurhan; Tiftikci, Arzu; Unal, Hakan Umit; Yapali, Suna; Acar, Sami; Agcaoglu, Orhan; Aghayeva, Afag; Akyuz, Ali; Atasoy, Deniz; Batik, Emre; Bayraktar, Ilknur Erenler; Bayram, Onur; Bilgic, Cagri; Bilgin, Ismail Ahmet; Can, Ugur; Dulgeroglu, Onur; Durukan, Ugur; Gencosmanoglu, Rasim; Gonenc, Murat; Gurbuz, Bulent; Kaya, Mesut; Omarov, Nail; Ozben, Volkan; Ozgur, Ilker; Ozoran, Emre; Sobutay, Erman; Uras, Cihan; Uymaz, Derya; Zenger, Serkan; Ozbek, Ugur; Yakicier, M. Cengiz; Afsar, Cigdem Usul; Bozkurt, Mustafa; Demir, Atakan; Er, Ozlem; Kanitez, Metin; Korkmaz, Taner; Mandel, Nil Molina; Mert, Askhan Guven; Ozer, Leyla; Sonmez, Ozlem; Tunali, Didem; Uluc, Basak Oyan; Yazar, Aziz; Yildiz, Ibrahim; Demirkurek, Cengiz; Guner, Ahmet Levent; Vardareli, Erkan; Armutlu, Aye; Baba, Fisun; Ersozlu, Ilker; Kapran, Yersu; Sahin, Davut; Abacioglu, Mehmet Ufuk; Bese, Nuran; Durankus, Nilufer Kilic; Gural, Zeynep; Ozyar, Enis; Sengoz, Meric; Sezen, Duygu; Caliskan, Can; Guven, Koray; Karaaslan, Ercan; Kizilkaya, Esref; Suleyman, Erdogan; Grp, Istanbul
    The geographical location and differences in tumor biology significantly change the management of gastric cancer. The prevalence of gastric cancer ranks fifth and sixth among men and women, respectively, in Turkey. The international guidelines from the Eastern and Western countries fail to manage a considerable amount of inconclusive issues in the management of gastric cancer. The uncertainties lead to significant heterogeneities in clinical practice, lack of homogeneous data collection, and subsequently, diverse outcomes. The physicians who are professionally involved in the management of gastric cancer at two institutions in Istanbul, Turkey, organized a consensus meeting to address current problems and plan feasible, logical, measurable, and collective solutions in their clinical practice for this challenging disease. The evidence-based data and current guidelines were reviewed. The gray zones in the management of gastric cancer were determined in the first session of this consensus meeting. The second session was constructed to discuss, vote, and ratify the ultimate decisions. The identification of the T stage, the esophagogastric area, imaging algorithm for proper staging and follow-up, timing and patient selection for neoadjuvant treatment, and management of advanced and metastatic disease have been accepted as the major issues in the management of gastric cancer. The recommendations are presented with the percentage of supporting votes in the results section with related data.