Gelişmiş Arama

Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorEzelsoy, Mehmet
dc.contributor.authorOral, Kerem
dc.contributor.authorCaynak, Baris
dc.contributor.authorBayramoglu, Zehra
dc.contributor.authorAkpinar, Belhhan
dc.date.accessioned2019-08-13T12:10:23Z
dc.date.accessioned2019-08-13T15:57:05Z
dc.date.available2019-08-13T12:10:23Z
dc.date.available2019-08-13T15:57:05Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.issn1098-3511
dc.identifier.issn1522-6662
dc.identifier.urihttps://dx.doi.org/10.1532/hsf.1606
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11446/2449
dc.descriptionWOS: 000384793700004en_US
dc.descriptionPubMed ID: 27585193en_US
dc.description.abstractObjective: Minimally invasive bypass grafting is a promising surgical treatment in proximal LAD stenosis procedures. The main goal of this study was to make comparisons between robotically assisted minimally invasive coronary bypass surgery and conventional surgery in isolated proximal LAD lesions in terms of pain and quality of life improvement. Methods: The study contains patients with proximal LAD lesions who were treated with robotically assisted minimally invasive coronary artery bypass surgery and conventional bypass surgery between June 2005 and November 2012. Fifty patients treated with coronary bypass with cardiopulmonary bypass and complete sternotomy were categorized as Group 1. Fifty patients who applied for robotically assisted minimally invasive bypass surgery were categorized as Group 2. The evaluations of pain and quality of life were done according to the Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) and SF-36 health survey questionnaire, respectively. Results: The conventional bypass group and robotic group had 4.8 +/- 1.9 years and 4.3 +/- 1.6 years mean followup time, respectively. The robotic bypass group had a significantly shorter ICU stay and hospital stay than the conventional bypass group (P < .05). The pain score was higher in the robotic bypass group on the 1st postoperative day (P < .05), but the score on the 4th postoperative day was higher in the conventional bypass group (P < .05). In terms of domains of the SF-36 questionnaire, patient scores were significantly higher in patients who were operated with robotically assisted minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) procedure than in patients who were operated with conventional bypass technique. Conclusion: Patients operated with robotically assisted MIDCAB procedure had results with lesser pain, shorter ICU stay, and shorter hospital stay than the other group in isolated proximal LAD stenosis. The same group also had better quality of life results according to the SF-36 questionnaire results.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherFORUM MULTIMEDIA PUBLISHING, LLCen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1532/hsf.1606en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.titlePain and the Quality of Life Following Robotic Assisted Minimally Invasive Surgeryen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.relation.journalHEART SURGERY FORUMen_US
dc.departmentDBÜen_US
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.volume19en_US
dc.identifier.startpageE165en_US
dc.identifier.endpageE168en_US
dc.contributor.authorID0000-0002-8423-5071en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.department-temp[Ezelsoy, Mehmet -- Oral, Kerem -- Caynak, Baris -- Bayramoglu, Zehra -- Akpinar, Belhhan] Istanbul Bilim Univ, Istanbul, Turkeyen_US


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

DosyalarBoyutBiçimGöster

Bu öğe ile ilişkili dosya yok.

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster