Yazar "Çolakoğlu, Mehmet Cengiz" seçeneğine göre listele

Listeleniyor 1 - 2 / 2
  • Küçük Resim
    Öğe
    Comparison of Modified Biophysical Profile and Doppler Ultrasound in Predicting the Perinatal Outcome at or Over 36 Weeks of Gestation
    (Karger, 2010) Bardakçı, Mehmet; Balcı, Osman; Acar, Ali; Çolakoğlu, Mehmet Cengiz
    Aims: In this study, modified biophysical profile (MBP) and uterine and umbilical artery Doppler ultrasonographic (USG) analysis were compared in predicting the perinatal outcome of pregnancies at >= 36 weeks. Methods: Three hundred and fifteen pregnant women were included in this study. Following routine examination, amniotic fluid index, uterine and umbilical artery Doppler indices were evaluated. Nonstress test (NST) was done and MBP was generated. Non-reassuring fetal status (NRFS), perinatal mortality, 5-min APGAR score and umbilical artery pH results were used in evaluating the perinatal outcome. Results: In groups with abnormal MBP and Doppler analysis the results of all parameters were bad. The statistical difference between the groups of normal and abnormal MBP and Doppler analysis was significant. In predicting the NRFS, MBP sensitivity was 60%, umbilical artery Doppler was 50% and uterine artery Doppler was 30%. In case of combination of findings of MBP and umbilical artery Doppler, the sensitivity rose to 70%. Conclusion: MBP was proved to be more significant than Doppler analysis in prediction of NRFS and perinatal results, but the sensitivity was increased when both were combined, so combination of MBP and Doppler analysis instead of MBP alone is more significant in antenatal assessment.
  • Küçük Resim
    Öğe
    Diagnosis and Management of Intra-Abdominal, Mislocated Intrauterine Devices
    (Springer Heidelberg, 2010) Balcı, Osman; Mahmoud, Alaa S.; Çapar, Metin; Çolakoğlu, Mehmet Cengiz
    To evaluate the predisposing factors, diagnosis and surgical treatment options of patients with intra-abdominal, mislocated intrauterine devices (IUDs). The diagnosis and management of 18 patients with intra-abdominal, mislocated IUDs were analyzed in this retrospective study. Trained midwives inserted ten (55%) of the IUDs, while six (33%) were inserted by general practitioners and two (11%) by specialist gynecologists. Ten (55.5%) of the patients were diagnosed by gynecological examination and ultrasonography (USG); abdominal X-ray, in addition, was required in the other eight (44.4%). Eleven patients (61%) were managed by laparoscopy, whereas laparotomy was required in seven (39%). For all patients, laparoscopy was performed initially. No complication was encountered in any of the patients. Persons who insert IUDs should receive adequate training before certification, because inadequate pelvic examination before insertion and inexperience of the inserting person might be predisposing factors for uterine perforation. If IUD strings are not visible during gynecologic examination, USG should be tried to locate the IUD and pelvic X-ray used only when USG fails to locate the IUD. Laparoscopy can be the first choice for removal.