Başar Sarikaya

Publications (3)5.47 Total impact

• Article: Comparison of the diagnostic utility of electromyography, ultrasonography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging in idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome determined by clinical findings.

  Fatih Ersay Deniz, Erol Oksüz, Başar Sarikaya, Semiha Kurt, Unal Erkorkmaz, Hasan Ulusoy, Sule Arslan
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) is the most common nerve entrapment syndrome. It is sometimes difficult to diagnose, and a late diagnosis may result in permanent nerve damage. Electromyography (EMG), ultrasonography (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and computed tomography (CT) may be performed for the diagnosis. The diagnostic accuracy of these tests is well documented, but most of these studies accept EMG as the gold standard. To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of EMG, MRI, CT, and US for the diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome with the use of clinical findings as the gold standard. Patients suspected to have CTS on presentation to the outpatient clinic were evaluated. The tests were performed after a detailed physical examination. Both wrists of the 69 patients in the study were investigated. : The diagnostic accuracies of all the tests were found to be sufficient. Although EMG seemed to have the highest sensitivity and specificity, there was no statistically significant difference between the tests. EMG or US could be used as the first-step test in most cases. If they are both available, EMG should be the first choice. They may be performed together when diagnosis is challenging. CT may especially be preferred for bone-related pathological conditions, whereas MRI may be preferred for soft tissue-related pathological conditions. Even though imaging studies have been proven to be powerful diagnostic tools for CTS, no conclusive information currently exists to support replacing EMG with imaging studies.
  Neurosurgery 08/2011; 70(3):610-6. · 2.79 Impact Factor
• Article: Ultrasonographic evaluation of disc displacement of the temporomandibular joint compared with magnetic resonance imaging.

  Nilüfer Cakir-Ozkan, Başar Sarikaya, Unal Erkorkmaz, Yeliz Aktürk
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: We compared high-resolution ultrasonography with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), as the gold standard, to evaluate lateral and anterior capsule-condyle distances to detect disc displacement of the temporomandibular joint. This study included 28 patients (19 female and 9 male; age range, 16-51 years; mean age, 32.82 years), and in total, 56 joints were assessed with ultrasonography and MRI. Measurements were obtained for anterior capsule-condyle and lateral capsule-condyle distances in both open- and closed-mouth positions with high-resolution ultrasonography. These findings were also compared with those of MRI taken as reference. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to assess our results. We assessed sensitivities, specificities, accuracies, and positive and negative predictive values for both open- and closed-mouth positions. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonographic anterior capsule-condyle distance in the closed-mouth position to detect MRI-positive disc displacement (area under receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.689; P = .015) was the highest. The measurement of the distance between the most anterior point of the articular capsule and the most anterior point of the condyle can be used to assess disc displacement in diseased joints. However, it is necessary to determine the most accurate threshold value and to set cutoff values. These findings need to be confirmed by further research in a large number of patients to test the interexaminer agreement and the reproducibility of this method.
  Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery: official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons 02/2010; 68(5):1075-80. · 1.58 Impact Factor
• Source

  Available from: Sevda Sarikaya

  Article: Unregistered subtracted CT angiography for the visualization of intracranial arteries at or near the skull base: preliminary experience.

  Başar Sarikaya, Sevda Sarikaya, Fatih Ersay Deniz, Berat Acu, Yüksel Kablan, M Murat Firat
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: Restrictions with computed tomography angiography (CTA) regarding the visualization of arteries near the skull base are well known. Today, the gold standard for overcoming this is the matched mask bone elimination method. Worldwide use of this method is limited since it requires advanced imaging physics and software. A more simple method was introduced recently that avoided motion artifacts significantly by restraining the patient's head with a vacuum-type head holder. The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility of using unregistered subtracted CTA without such head-holding methods. Of the 42 patients that underwent subtracted CTA, 39 were recruited for this study. Two patients were excluded due to agitation during examination and one due to artifacts of an embolized aneurysm. All the examinations were performed in an 8-channel multidetector CT suite. After performing a non-contrast low-dose CT examination, CTA was carried out using the same scan planes as on the scout images. Images were transferred to a workstation and subtraction was performed. Hard-copy images through identical locations were reviewed by 2 observers, a radiologist and a clinician (neurologist), and visualization of the internal carotid artery and posterior artery systems were scored. Data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Significant statistical differences, in favor of subtracted images, were noted in both observers' scores, both for the internal carotid artery and posterior system arteries. The differences in the clinician's scores were more prominent than that of radiologist's. These results are promising for the expanded use of the subtraction method, especially in radiology departments that lack the staff and equipment for registered methods.
  Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) 10/2007; 13(3):105-8. · 1.10 Impact Factor