Hakan Sentürk

Prof. Dr. Hakan Sentürk


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

27Years (2000-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
25 July 2019 in Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
MTMukaddes Tozlu
Mukaddes Tozlu
YKYusuf Kayar
Yusuf Kayar
AİAli Tüzün İnce
Ali Tüzün İnce
BBBirol Baysal
Birol Baysal
HSHakan Sentürk
Hakan Sentürk
Background/Aims: Acute pancreatitis (AP) runs a moderately severe and severe course in 20%-30% of cases. The purpose of the present study was to determine the effect of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) for the prevention of pancreatic necrosis (PN) in moderately severe and severe AP (MSAP). Materials and Methods: A total of 100 patients with MSAP were randomized to receive either standard care (SC) or SC plus LMWH. LMWH was administered at 1 mg/kg via subcutaneous injection twice a day between days 1 and 7. The revised Atlanta criteria were used in the diagnosis of MSAP. Patients with a Harmless AP Score of ≥1 and a Balthazar computed tomography (CT) score of D and E were included in the study. Results: The mean age±SD of the patients (46 male and 54 female) was 52±19 years (range, 17-100). There were 50 patients in each group. On admission, clinical and laboratory parameters and Balthazar CT scores were similar between the groups. Initially, PN was present in one patient in the LMWH group and two in the SC group. Over the course, PN developed in 3 (6.1%) patients in the LMWH group and 11 (22.9%) in the SC group (p<0.05). Local and systemic complications were significantly lower in the LMWH group (p<0.05). No hemorrhagic complication occurred. Mortality was not significantly different between the groups (p=0.056). Conclusion: Low molecular weight heparin treatment is safe and provides better prognosis in MSAP. Cite this article as: Tozlu M, Kayar Y, İnce AT, Baysal B, Şentürk H. Low molecular weight heparin treatment of acute moderate and severe pancreatitis: A randomized, controlled, open-label study. Turk J Gastroenterol 2019; 30: 81-7.

6 February 2021 in Digestive Diseases and Sciences
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
GSGulseren Seven
Gulseren Seven
Gokhan SILAHTAROGLUGokhan SILAHTAROGLU
Gokhan SILAHTAROGLU
KKKoray Kochan
Koray Kochan
AIAli Tuzun Ince
Ali Tuzun Ince
DADilek Sema Arici
Dilek Sema Arici
HSHakan Sentürk
Hakan Sentürk

11 April 2006 in Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
BCBillur Canbakan
Billur Canbakan
HSHakan Sentürk
Hakan Sentürk
FTFehmi Tabak
Fehmi Tabak
MAMeral Akdogan
Meral Akdogan
Veysel TahanVeysel Tahan
Veysel Tahan
GOGulsen Ozbay
Gulsen Ozbay

1 December 2000 in Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MBMuammer Bilir
Muammer Bilir
AMAli Mert
Ali Mert
ROResat Ozaras
Resat Ozaras
HYHalil Yanardag
Halil Yanardag
TKTuncer Karayel
Tuncer Karayel
ASAbdullah Sonsuz
Abdullah Sonsuz

1 January 2017 in Endoscopic Ultrasound
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
HSHakan Sentürk
Hakan Sentürk
BBBirol Baysal
Birol Baysal
OMOmarA Masri
OmarA Masri
MEMohamadA Eloubeidi
MohamadA Eloubeidi
Background: Referral for endosonographic evaluation of subepithelial lesions seen in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract is fairly common. Although rarely studied separately in details, esophageal lesions have some unique differences from other GI sites and might deserve some special considerations regarding follow-up and management. Materials and Methods: All cases referred for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) evaluation of subepithelial esophageal lesions at Bezmialem University Hospital, a tertiary center in Istanbul, Turkey were retrospectively reviewed. Data were collected for patient and lesion characteristics as well as for pathology results and follow-up if available. Lesions were subcategorized according to their size, location, and final diagnosis. Results: A total of 164 EUS examinations were identified. In 22.5% of cases, the lesion could not be identified by EUS. Of the remaining cases, 57.6% had a lesion larger than 1 cm in size. Extramural compression was the diagnosis in 12% and leiomyoma in around 60%. Thirteen patients had follow-up examinations with only two showing an increase in size after 12 months. Sixty-five EUS-guided fine needle aspirations (EUS-guided FNAs) were performed, with around 50% having nondiagnostic samples and 94% of the remaining samples confirming the presumptive diagnosis. Conclusions: The majority of subepithelial lesions in the esophagus are benign with extremely low malignancy potential. EUS examinations performed for lesions smaller than 2 cm as well as FNAs taken from lesions smaller than 3 cm might have minimal impact on their ultimate management and outcome. More than one FNA pass should be attempted in order to improve the yield.

1 May 2014 in Pancreatology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
AIAli Tüzün İnCe
Ali Tüzün İnCe
HSHakan Sentürk
Hakan Sentürk
VSVikesh K. Singh
Vikesh K. Singh
KYKemal Yildiz
Kemal Yildiz
ADAhmet Danalioğlu
Ahmet Danalioğlu
AGAhmet Gürakar
Ahmet Gürakar