Yazar "Kulak, Bilal" seçeneğine göre listele

Listeleniyor 1 - 2 / 2
  • [ N/A ]
    Öğe
    Are HoLEP Surgical Videos on YouTube Biased and Misleading or Are They Leading the Industry?
    (Galenos Yayincilik, 2022) Koras, Omer; Gokalp, Fatih; Yildirak, Ekrem; Sigva, Hakan; Tamkac, Nezih; Porgali, Sefa Burak; Kulak, Bilal
    Objective: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the content and quality of the most relevant YouTube videos related to holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) surgery. Materials and Methods: The keywords HOLEP, laser enucleation and prostate enucleation were used to perform a search on YouTube. NonEnglish language videos, videos with less than 4-minute duration, and repetitive videos were excluded. The reactions of the viewers to the videos were evaluated by recording the total views, views/month and likes and dislikes parameters. The data were divided into two groups based on the source of upload: Group 1 consisted of healthcare providers and group 2 comprised of commercial companies and for-profit organizations. Results: A total of 117 videos were included in the study. A significant portion of the videos (77.7%) had been uploaded by healthcare providers. There was no statistically significant difference between the uploading groups in terms of the DISCERN and the Global Quality score, scores (p=0.484 and p=0.108, respectively). However, Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audiovisual Materials understandability and actionability scores were statistically significantly higher in group 2 (p=0.004 and p=0.022, respectively). In addition, when the misinformation scale was evaluated, there were significantly more videos with high-degree misinformation in group 2 (5.5% vs 33.3%, p=0.001). Conclusion: On video sharing platforms, such as YouTube, the number of reliable videos with accurate and appropriate guidance about diseases and treatments should be increased, and these videos should be allowed to be posted after they have been approved by relevant institutions, including healthcare associations and universities.
  • [ N/A ]
    Öğe
    A novel enema method can prevent infectious complications of transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy: A single-centre experience
    (Wiley, 2021) Gokalp, Fatih; Koras, Omer; Gursoy, Didar; Sigva, Hakan; Porgali, Sefa Burak; Tamkac, Nezih; Kulak, Bilal
    Background TRUS biopsy is the preferred method for diagnosing prostate cancer, but it can cause infectious complications that arise with the contribution of fluoroquinolone resistance. We aimed to explore the potential protective effect of a second rectal enema before biopsy. Methods From January 2015 to December 2020, 419 patients were assessed retrospectively. Patients with a history of anticoagulant use, uncontrolled diabetes, urological surgery, prostate biopsy or recent hospitalisation or overseas travel, as well as those with the previous prostatitis, were excluded from the study. The patients were subsequently divided into two groups: Group 1 (n = 223) had received one enema, on the morning of the biopsy and Group 2 (n = 196) had received two, with the additional enema administered half an hour before the procedure. Results There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of age(P = .076), BMI (P = .489), diabetes (P = .265), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level (P = .193), free/total PSA (f/t PSA) ratio (P = .518) and prostate size (P = .661) or in relation to cancer detection (P = .428). The median hospitalisation date was significantly higher in Group 1 (P = .003) as was urinary tract infection (UTI) development (P = .004). However, there was no significant difference in terms of fever and sepsis (P = .524 and P = .548, respectively). Additionally, subgroup analysis demonstrated that UTI was significantly lower in patients with diabetes mellitus who had received a second enema (P = .004), though there was no significant difference in UTI between the groups in those without diabetes mellitus (P = .215). Multivariable analysis showed that age and diabetes were significant risk factors for the development of UTI (OR: 1.074, 95% CI: 1.027-1.130, P = .002 and OR: 1.220, 95% CI: 0.131-0.665, P = .003, respectively). Furthermore, the second enema was a significant protective factor for preventing UTI (OR: -1.794, 95% CI: 2.208-16.389, P < .001). Conclusion Older age and the presence of diabetes mellitus are independent risk factors for UTI after prostate biopsy. A second enema procedure before biopsy may protect patients from related infectious complications and could therefore be used as an alternative preventative method.