Yazar "Sarica, Kemal" seçeneğine göre listele

Listeleniyor 1 - 2 / 2
  • Küçük Resim Yok
    Öğe
    Contemporary Management of Medium-Sized (10-20mm) Renal Stones: A Retrospective Multicenter Observational Study
    (Mary Ann Liebert, Inc, 2015) Kiremit, Murat Can; Guven, Selcuk; Sarica, Kemal; Ozturk, Ahmet; Buldu, Ibrahim; Kafkasli, Alper; Balasar, Mehmet
    Purpose: To evaluate contemporary management approaches to medium-sized (10-20mm) renal stones. Patients and Methods: A total of 935 patients treated for medium-sized renal stones (10-20mm) between July 2012 and March 2014 were included in the study program. Contemporary minimally invasive approaches applied in the management of such stones were evaluated and compared. Results: The cohort consisted of 561 male (60%) and 374 female (40%) patients. Of the 935 patients with medium-sized renal calculi, 535 (57.2%) were treated with shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), 201 (21.4%) with retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), 110 (11.7%) with minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (miniperc), and the remaining 89 (11.7%) patients with micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc). In the SWL group, stones were located mostly in the pelvis (51%), while in the miniperc and microperc groups, they were located mainly in the lower pole (46%, 53%, respectively). Stone-free rates after a single session were 77.2%, 86.1%, 88.8%, and 83.6% in the SWL, RIRS, microperc, and miniperc groups, respectively. Although no serious complications (above Clavien level III) were noted in any of the groups evaluated, Clavien I to II complications were common in the miniperc group. Conclusion: Although SWL is the preferred treatment option for patients with medium-sized (10-20mm) renal stones, endourologic methods also have been found to have a significant role. Relatively lower complication rates along with higher stone-free status observed with the RIRS technique compared with percutaneous approaches have made this method a valuable option in the management of such stones in recent years.
  • Küçük Resim Yok
    Öğe
    Current management of renal colic across Europe and its compliance to the European Association of Urology Guidelines on Urolithiasis: a survey from the European Section of Uro-technology, European Section of Urolithiasis, Young Academic Urologists study groups
    (Polish Urological Assoc, 2022) Guven, Selcuk; Sonmez, Mehmet Giray; Somani, Bhaskar Kumar; Goezen, Ali Serdar; Sarica, Kemal; Gomez Rivas, Juan; Nagele, Udo
    Introduction Renal colic due to ureteral stones represents the primary acute condition in urology. Although guideline recommendations are available the institution, urologist, and patient preferences in diagnosis and treatment may differ. We aimed to evaluate the adherence of different European countries to the European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines of urolithiasis and demonstrate trends in diagnostic and treatment approaches. Material and methods We used a survey including 33 questions clustered in four sections. The survey was circulated to the representatives of the main urological centers in Europe using the European Section of Uro-technology (ESUT), the European Section of Urolithiasis (EULIS), the Young Academic Urologists (YAU), and the European Urology Residents Education Programme (EUREP) mailing lists. The first section included participant and institution demographics, the second assessed the common diagnostic and treatment pathways, the third discussed the advantages and disadvantages of treatment strategies and the fourth investigated treatment preferences in different clinical scenarios. A descriptive analysis was performed. Results Of all participants, 84.21% stated that their departments follow specific guidelines, with no significant differences between institutions (p = 0.18). Preferred treatment practice difference in the case scenarios was significantly influenced by the Department bed capacities (p = 0.01), and complications varied between institutions (p = 0.02). Interestingly, 37-45% of participants were unaware of the different treatment costs. Conclusions Although urologists generally decide according to local or international guidelines when approaching renal colic patients, there are deviations in clinical practice due to `doctor preference' and `bed availability'. Many urologists are unaware of treatment costs.