nach oben

20.04.2024 | Review

Subperiosteal implants constructed with digital technology: A systematic review

verfasst von: Mohammed A. El-Sawy, Salah A. Hegazy

Erschienen in: Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Statement of problem

Atrophied jaw is a condition where there is insufficient bone quantity and quality. Several treatment plans are available for treating atrophied jaws, including subperiosteal implants.

Purpose

To evaluate the spectrum of subperiosteal implants for severely atrophied jaws using digital technology.

Materials and methods

An electronic and manual search was conducted in the PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. Publications of cohort studies, case series, and case reports written in English without data restrictions that reported on subperiosteal implant management of patients with severely atrophied jaws in a completely and partially edentulous population.

Results

A total of 26 articles, comprising 302 cases, were analyzed. In patients with severely atrophied jaws. The success rate was 87.7%, the surviving rate was 95.3%. The most common complications were biological, such as dehiscence and framework exposure. The rates of biologic complications were 11.5%, and the rates of prosthetic problems were 5.9%.

Conclusions

Subperiosteal implants designed and constructed using digital technology are a promising treatment in the short term. Attention should be directed to decrease the biological complication. Correct designing, implanting, fixing, and patient selection and maintenance are critical for the success of the treatment. Longer prospective studies with larger population are needed to view the effect on hard and soft tissue.

Chen H, Gu T, Lai H, Gu X (2022) Evaluation of hard tissue 3-dimensional stability around single implants placed with guided bone regeneration in the anterior maxilla: A 3-year retrospective study, J. Prosthet. Dent, vol. 128, no. 5, pp. 919–927, Nov. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROSDENT.2021.02.015

Potdukhe SS, Iyer JM, Nadgere JB (Jul. 2023) Evaluation of implant stability and increase in bone height in indirect sinus lift done with the osseodensification and osteotome technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROSDENT.2023.04.021

Wang CI, Cho SH, Ivey A, Reddy LV, Sinada N (2022) Combined bone- and mucosa-supported 3D-printed guide for sinus slot preparation and prosthetically driven zygomatic implant placement, J. Prosthet. Dent, vol. 128, no. 6, pp. 1165–1170, Dec. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROSDENT.2021.02.024

Konstantinović VS, Abd-Ul-Salam H, Jelovac D, Ivanjac F, Miličić B (Jul. 2023) Pterygoid and tuberosity implants in the atrophic posterior maxilla: a retrospective cohort study. J Prosthet Dent. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROSDENT.2023.06.007

Chiapasco M, Consolo U, Bianchi A, Ronchi P (Dec. 2004) Alveolar distraction osteogenesis for the correction of vertically deficient edentulous ridges: a multicenter prospective study on humans. J Prosthet Dent 92(6):587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.08.007

Kablan F (Jul. 2022) A new classification of inferior alveolar nerve repositioning procedure for dental implants placement presentation and illustrative cases. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 51:e. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJOM.2022.03.033

Chiapasco M, Casentini P, Zaniboni M (2009) Bone augmentation procedures in implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 24 Suppl:237–259PubMed

Aghaloo T, Misch C, Lin G-H, Iacono V, Wang H-L (2017) Bone augmentation of the Edentulous Maxilla for Implant Placement: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 31:s19–s30. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.16suppl.g1CrossRef

Mommaerts MY (Jan. 2019) Evolutionary steps in the design and biofunctionalization of the additively manufactured sub-periosteal jaw implant ‘AMSJI’ for the maxilla. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 48(1):108–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2018.08.001

10.

Cerea M, Dolcini GA (2018) Custom-Made Direct Metal Laser Sintering Titanium Subperiosteal Implants: A Retrospective Clinical Study on 70 Patients, Biomed Res. Int, vol. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5420391

11.

Elsawy MA, ELgamal ME, Ahmed WM (2022) M. A. EL-daker, and S. A. Hegazy, Polyetheretherketone subperiosteal implant retaining a maxillary fixed prosthesis: A case series, J. Prosthet. Dent, Oct. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.08.027

12.

Sorní M, Guarinós J, García O, Peñarrocha M Implant rehabilitation of the atrophic upper jaw: a review of the literature since 1999. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal, 10 Suppl 1, pp. E45-56, Apr. 2005.

13.

Hoang D, Perrault D, Stevanovic M, Ghiassi A (2016) Today surgical applications of three-dimensional printing: a review of the current literature & how to get started. Ann Transl Med 4(23). https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2016.12.18

14.

Surovas A (Dec. 2019) A digital workflow for modeling of custom dental implants. 3D Print Med 5(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41205-019-0046-y

15.

Carnicero A, Peláez A, Restoy-Lozano A, Jacquott I, Perera R (2021) Improvement of an additively manufactured subperiosteal implant structure design by finite elements based topological optimization, Sci. Reports vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–9, Jul. 2021, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-94980-1

16.

Cebrián JL, Carretero et al (2022) Virtual Surgical Planning and Customized Subperiosteal Titanium Maxillary Implant (CSTMI) for Three Dimensional Reconstruction and Dental Implants of Maxillary Defects after Oncological Resection: Case Series, J. Clin. Med Vol. 11, Page 4594, vol. 11, no. 15, p. 4594, Aug. 2022, https://doi.org/10.3390/JCM11154594

17.

Jehn P et al (2020) Aug., Oral health-related quality of life in tumour patients treated with patient-specific dental implants, Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg, vol. 49, no. 8, pp. 1067–1072, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJOM.2020.01.011

18.

Kondaka S, Singh VD, Vadlamudi C, Bathala LR (2022) Prosthetic rehabilitation of untailored defects using patient-specific implants. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 19(1):83. https://doi.org/10.4103/1735-3327.359321CrossRefPubMed

19.

Patel N, Mel A, Patel P, Fakkhruddin A, Gupta S (2023) A Novel Method to Rehabilitate Post-mucormycosis Maxillectomy Defect by Using Patient-Specific Zygoma Implant, J. Maxillofac. Oral Surg, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 118–123, Mar. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12663-023-01847-1/FIGURES/6

20.

Gunawardena DA et al (Dec. 2022) Reconstruction of a maxillectomy and rhinectomy defect utilising a novel subperiosteal prosthesis and magnet-retained nasal prosthesis: a case report. Oral Oncol 135:106222. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ORALONCOLOGY.2022.106222

21.

Vosselman N, Merema BJ, Schepman KP, Raghoebar GM (Jan. 2019) Patient-specific sub-periosteal zygoma implant for prosthetic rehabilitation of large maxillary defects after oncological resection. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 48(1):115–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJOM.2018.06.010

22.

Garrido-Martínez P, Quispe-López N, Montesdeoca-García N, Esparza-Gómez G, Cebrián-Carretero JL (Mar. 2022) Maxillary reconstruction with subperiosteal implants in a cancer patient: a one-year follow-up. J Clin Exp Dent 14(3):e293. https://doi.org/10.4317/JCED.59331

23.

Brånemark PI, Adell R, Albrektsson T, Lekholm U, Lundkvist S, Rockler B (Jan. 1983) Osseointegrated titanium fixtures in the treatment of edentulousness. Biomaterials 4(1):25–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-9612(83)90065-0

24.

Linkow LI, Ghalili R (1999) Ramus hinges for excessive movements of the condyles: a new dimension in mandibular tripodal subperiosteal implants., The Journal of oral implantology, vol. 25, no. 1. Allen Press, pp. 11–17, Jan. 01, https://doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(1999)025%3C0011:RHFEMO%3E2.3.CO;2

25.

Mommaerts MY (Jun. 2020) Reconstruction of a Subtotal Maxillectomy defect using a customized Titanium Implant in a 4-Year-old child: an 8-Year Follow-Up report. Front Surg 7:535475. https://doi.org/10.3389/FSURG.2020.00028/BIBTEX

26.

Linkow L, Iyer S, Piermatti J (Jun. 2023) The World’s Longest Functioning Implant: a verified case report. J Oral Implantol 49(3):271–278. https://doi.org/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-22-00185

27.

Rinaldi M, De Neef B, Loomans NAJ, Mommaerts MY (2020) Guidelines for the Use of Resection Guides for Subperiosteal Maxillary Implants in Cases of Terminal Dentition - A Novel Approach, Ann. Maxillofac. Surg, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 467–471, Jul. https://doi.org/10.4103/AMS.AMS_135_20

28.

Koseoglu M et al (Jan. 2023) Level of evidence and characteristics of clinical studies published in leading prosthodontics journals. J Prosthet Dent 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROSDENT.2022.12.008

29.

Bornes RS, Montero J, Correia ARM, Rosa NR (2023) Use of bioinformatic strategies as a predictive tool in implant-supported oral rehabilitation: A scoping review, J. Prosthet. Dent, Jan. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROSDENT.2022.12.011

30.

Korn P et al (Oct. 2022) Managing the severely atrophic maxilla: Farewell to zygomatic implants and extensive augmentations? J Stomatol Oral Maxillofac Surg 123(5):562–565. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JORMAS.2021.12.007

31.

Rahlf B et al (2022) Novel approach for treating challenging implant-borne maxillary dental rehabilitation cases of cleft lip and palate: a retrospective study, Int. J. Implant Dent vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–9, Feb. 2022, https://doi.org/10.1186/S40729-022-00401-X

32.

Nguyen TM, Caruhel JB, Khonsari RH (2018) A subperiosteal maxillary implant causing severe osteolysis, J. Stomatol. Oral Maxillofac. Surg, vol. 119, no. 6, pp. 523–525, Dec. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2018.06.007

33.

Dimitroulis G, Gupta B, Wilson I, Hart C (Feb. 2022) The atrophic edentulous alveolus. A preliminary study on a new generation of subperiosteal implants. Oral Maxillofac Surg 1:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10006-022-01044-3/FIGURES/9

34.

Nemtoi A et al (Oct. 2022) Custom-made direct metal laser sintering Titanium Subperiosteal implants in oral and maxillofacial surgery for severe bone-deficient Patients—A pilot study. Diagnostics 2022 12(10):2531. Page 253110.3390/DIAGNOSTICS12102531

35.

Mangano C et al (2020) Custom-made 3D printed subperiosteal titanium implants for the prosthetic restoration of the atrophic posterior mandible of elderly patients: a case series, 3D Print. Med vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–14, Jan. 2020, https://doi.org/10.1186/S41205-019-0055-X

36.

De Riu G et al (2023) Primary Reconstruction of Total Maxillectomy with Custom-Made Subperiosteal Implant and Temporal Muscle Flap: A Case Report, Appl. Sci Vol. 13, Page 6269, vol. 13, no. 10, p. 6269, May 2023, https://doi.org/10.3390/APP13106269

37.

Korn P, Gellrich NC, Jehn P, Spalthoff S, Rahlf B (Dec. 2021) A New Strategy for Patient-Specific Implant-Borne Dental Rehabilitation in patients with extended Maxillary defects. Front Oncol 11:718872. https://doi.org/10.3389/FONC.2021.718872/BIBTEX

38.

Arshad M, Khoramshahi N, Shirani G (2022) Additively Custom-made 3D printed subperiosteal implants for the rehabilitation of the severely Atrophic Maxilla (a case report). Authorea Prepr Jun. https://doi.org/10.22541/AU.165639803.34194182/V1CrossRef

39.

Van den Borre C et al (2023) Patient Satisfaction and Impact on Oral Health after Maxillary Rehabilitation Using a Personalized Additively Manufactured Subperiosteal Jaw Implant (AMSJI), J. Pers. Med Vol. 13, Page 297, vol. 13, no. 2, p. 297, Feb. 2023, https://doi.org/10.3390/JPM13020297

40.

Van den Borre C et al (2022) Feb., Patient- and clinician-reported outcomes for the additively manufactured sub-periosteal jaw implant (AMSJI) in the maxilla: a prospective multicentre one-year follow-up study, Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 243–250, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJOM.2021.05.015

41.

Gellrich NC et al (Oct. 2017) A customised digitally engineered solution for fixed dental rehabilitation in severe bone deficiency: a new innovative line extension in implant dentistry. J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg 45(10):1632–1638. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCMS.2017.07.022

42.

Mounir M, Atef M, Titanium MMH, Abou-Elfetouh A, Hakam MM (May 2017) Titanium and polyether ether ketone (PEEK) patient-specific sub-periosteal implants: two novel approaches for rehabilitation of the severely atrophic anterior maxillary ridge. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 47(5):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2017.11.008

43.

Rico ÁMS, Fernández ABM, Martínez EB, López AJE, Valadés RF, Plaza AM (Feb. 2023) Prosthetic restoration with virtual planned subperiosteal implant in adult patient with cleft lip and palate with severe sequelae. Ann 3D Print Med 9:100095. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.STLM.2022.100095

44.

Marconcini S, Giammarinaro E, Covani U (Mar. 2023) The rehabilitation of the atrophic posterior maxilla with a custom-made subperiosteal implant in a patient with a history of medications related to osteonecrosis of the jaws: one-year case report. Oral Maxillofac Surg Cases 9(1):100292. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.OMSC.2023.100292

45.

Strappa EM, Memè L, Cerea M, Roy M, Bambini F (2022) Custom-made additively manufactured subperiosteal implant., Minerva Dent. Oral Sci, vol. 71, no. 6, pp. 353–360, Nov. https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-6329.22.04640-X

46.

Ângelo DF, Vieira Ferreira JR (2020) The Role of Custom-made Subperiosteal Implants for Rehabilitation of Atrophic Jaws - A Case Report, Ann. Maxillofac. Surg, vol. 10, no. 2, p. 507, Jul. https://doi.org/10.4103/AMS.AMS_263_20

47.

Young L, Michel JD, Moore DJ (May 1983) A twenty-year evaluation of subperiosteal implants. J Prosthet Dent 49(5):690–694. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(83)90398-0

48.

Alexander Aigner D, Dipl-Ing U, Pahr DD (2022) and A. Dipl-Ing Francesco Moscato, Design and optimization of a Patient-. Specific Additively Manufactured Subperiosteal Ceramic Implant

49.

Watanabe T et al (2022) Squamous cell carcinoma around a subperiosteal implant in the maxilla and the association of chronic mechanical irritation and peri-implantitis: a case report, Int. J. Implant Dent vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–7, Mar. 2022, https://doi.org/10.1186/S40729-022-00409-3

50.

Nambiema A et al (Sep. 2021) A protocol for the Use of Case Reports/Studies and Case Series in systematic reviews for clinical toxicology. Front Med 8:708380. https://doi.org/10.3389/FMED.2021.708380/BIBTEX

51.

Varghese AA, Xavier AM, Ramanarayanan V (Mar. 2023) Removable prosthetic management for tooth agenesis in the pediatric population: a systematic review of case reports and case series. J Prosthet Dent. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROSDENT.2023.02.005

52.

Page MJ et al (Apr. 2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Int J Surg 88:105906. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJSU.2021.105906

53.

Van den Borre C et al (2021) Radiographic Evaluation of Bone Remodeling after Additively Manufactured Subperiosteal Jaw Implantation (AMSJI) in the Maxilla: A One-Year Follow-Up Study, J. Clin. Med Vol. 10, Page 3542, vol. 10, no. 16, p. 3542, Aug. 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/JCM10163542

54.

Articles - APA 7th Style - LibGuides at University of Newcastle Library (2023) https://libguides.newcastle.edu.au/apa-7th/articles

55.

Vaira LA et al (Jan. 2024) Implant-prosthetic rehabilitation of the atrophic posterior mandible with additively manufactured custom-made subperiosteal implants: a cohort study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJOM.2024.01.003

56.

John A, Sherigar P, Hegde V, George VT (2023) Prosthodontic rehabilitation of a patient with nintedanib-induced osteonecrosis of the jaw: A clinical report, vol. 0, no. 0, Aug

57.

Rinaldi M, De Neef B, Loomans NAJ, Mommaerts MY (Jul. 2020) Guidelines for the Use of Resection guides for Subperiosteal Maxillary implants in cases of terminal dentition - A Novel Approach. Ann Maxillofac Surg 10(2):467. https://doi.org/10.4103/AMS.AMS_135_20

58.

Elkhadem A, Mickan S, Richards D (2014) Adverse events of surgical extrusion in treatment for crown–root and cervical root fractures: a systematic review of case series/reports, Dent. Traumatol, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 1–14, Feb. https://doi.org/10.1111/EDT.12051

59.

Naik HB, Abuabara K (Feb. 2018) Systematic reviews of case reports and case series: from anecdote to evidence. Br J Dermatol 178(2):317–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/BJD.16073

60.

Hess JA, Molinari JA, Mentag PJ (1982) Two cases of incompatibility to carbon-coated subperiosteal implants, Oral Surgery, Oral Med. Oral Pathol, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 499–505, Nov. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(82)90186-4

61.

Bodine RL, Yanase RT, Bodine A (Jan. 1996) Forty years of experience with subperiosteal implant dentures in 41 edentulous patients. J Prosthet Dent 75(1):33–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90414-X

62.

Garcia J, Dodge A, Luepke P, Wang HL, Kapila Y, Lin GH (2018) Effect of membrane exposure on guided bone regeneration: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Clin. Oral Implants Res, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 328–338, Mar. https://doi.org/10.1111/CLR.13121

63.

Ortiz-Vigón A, Suarez I, Martínez-Villa S, Sanz-Martín I, Bollain J, Sanz M (Jan. 2018) Safety and performance of a novel collagenated xenogeneic bone block for lateral alveolar crest augmentation for staged implant placement. Clin Oral Implants Res 29(1):36–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/CLR.13036

64.

Thoma DS, Bienz SP, Figuero E, Jung RE, Sanz-Martín I (2019) Efficacy of lateral bone augmentation performed simultaneously with dental implant placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis, J. Clin. Periodontol, vol. 46, no. S21, pp. 257–276, Jun. https://doi.org/10.1111/JCPE.13050

65.

Sanz-Sánchez I, Sanz-Martín I, Ortiz-Vigón A, Molina A, Sanz M (2022) Complications in bone-grafting procedures: Classification and management, Periodontol. 2000, vol. 88, no. 1, pp. 86–102, Feb. https://doi.org/10.1111/PRD.12413

66.

Tay JRH, Ng E, Lu XJ, Lai WMC (2022) Healing complications and their detrimental effects on bone gain in vertical-guided bone regeneration: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 43–71, Feb. https://doi.org/10.1111/CID.13057

67.

Cucchi A, Vignudelli E, Napolitano A, Marchetti C, Corinaldesi G (Oct. 2017) Evaluation of complication rates and vertical bone gain after guided bone regeneration with non-resorbable membranes versus titanium meshes and resorbable membranes. A randomized clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 19(5):821–832

68.

Jia P, Yang J (Jan. 2024) Biofilm accumulation on complete arch subperiosteal implant-supported prostheses: Effect of pontic type. J Prosthet Dent. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROSDENT.2023.12.015

69.

Zhe Q, Lan M, Xiang Z, Hai-yang Z, Dan L, Zhan-xin W (2017) Plaque accumulation beneath maxillary full-arch implant-supported fixed prostheses. J Prev Treat Stomatol Dis 305–310. https://doi.org/10.12016/J.ISSN.2096-1456.2017.05.006

70.

Francetti L, Agliardi E, Testori T, Romeo D, Taschieri S, Fabbro MD (2008) Immediate Rehabilitation of the Mandible with Fixed Full Prosthesis Supported by Axial and Tilted Implants: Interim Results of a Single Cohort Prospective Study, Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 255–263, Dec. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1708-8208.2008.00090.X

71.

dos Reis INR, Fukuoka GL, Nagay BE, Pannuti CM, Spin-Neto R, da Silva EVF (Oct. 2023) Incidence of peri-implant disease associated with cement- and screw-retained implant-supported prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PROSDENT.2023.08.030

72.

Nussbaumer-Streit B et al (Feb. 2020) Excluding non-english publications from evidence-syntheses did not change conclusions: a meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol 118:42–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLINEPI.2019.10.011

Titel: Subperiosteal implants constructed with digital technology: A systematic review
verfasst von: Mohammed A. El-Sawy
Salah A. Hegazy
Publikationsdatum: 20.04.2024
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Print ISSN: 1865-1550
Elektronische ISSN: 1865-1569
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10006-024-01249-8

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Vorsicht, erhöhte Blutungsgefahr nach PCI!

10.05.2024 Koronare Herzerkrankung Nachrichten

Nach PCI besteht ein erhöhtes Blutungsrisiko, wenn die Behandelten eine verminderte linksventrikuläre Ejektionsfraktion aufweisen. Das Risiko ist umso höher, je stärker die Pumpfunktion eingeschränkt ist.

Darf man die Behandlung eines Neonazis ablehnen?

08.05.2024 Gesellschaft Nachrichten

In einer Leseranfrage in der Zeitschrift Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology möchte ein anonymer Dermatologe bzw. eine anonyme Dermatologin wissen, ob er oder sie einen Patienten behandeln muss, der eine rassistische Tätowierung trägt.

Deutlich weniger Infektionen: Wundprotektoren schützen!

08.05.2024 Postoperative Wundinfektion Nachrichten

Der Einsatz von Wundprotektoren bei offenen Eingriffen am unteren Gastrointestinaltrakt schützt vor Infektionen im Op.-Gebiet – und dient darüber hinaus der besseren Sicht. Das bestätigt mit großer Robustheit eine randomisierte Studie im Fachblatt JAMA Surgery.

Chirurginnen und Chirurgen sind stark suizidgefährdet

07.05.2024 Suizid Nachrichten

Der belastende Arbeitsalltag wirkt sich negativ auf die psychische Gesundheit der Angehörigen ärztlicher Berufsgruppen aus. Chirurginnen und Chirurgen bilden da keine Ausnahme, im Gegenteil.

Update Chirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Aktuelle BDC Leitlinien-Webinare

S3-Leitlinie „Diagnostik und Therapie des Karpaltunnelsyndroms“

Karpaltunnelsyndrom BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Das Karpaltunnelsyndrom ist die häufigste Kompressionsneuropathie peripherer Nerven. Obwohl die Anamnese mit dem nächtlichen Einschlafen der Hand (Brachialgia parästhetica nocturna) sehr typisch ist, ist eine klinisch-neurologische Untersuchung und Elektroneurografie in manchen Fällen auch eine Neurosonografie erforderlich. Im Anfangsstadium sind konservative Maßnahmen (Handgelenksschiene, Ergotherapie) empfehlenswert. Bei nicht Ansprechen der konservativen Therapie oder Auftreten von neurologischen Ausfällen ist eine Dekompression des N. medianus am Karpaltunnel indiziert.

Prof. Dr. med. Gregor Antoniadis

S2e-Leitlinie „Distale Radiusfraktur“

Radiusfraktur BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Das Webinar beschäftigt sich mit Fragen und Antworten zu Diagnostik und Klassifikation sowie Möglichkeiten des Ausschlusses von Zusatzverletzungen. Die Referenten erläutern, welche Frakturen konservativ behandelt werden können und wie. Das Webinar beantwortet die Frage nach aktuellen operativen Therapiekonzepten: Welcher Zugang, welches Osteosynthesematerial? Auf was muss bei der Nachbehandlung der distalen Radiusfraktur geachtet werden?

PD Dr. med. Oliver Pieske

Dr. med. Benjamin Meyknecht

S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“

Appendizitis BDC Leitlinien Webinare

CME: 2 Punkte

Inhalte des Webinars zur S1-Leitlinie „Empfehlungen zur Therapie der akuten Appendizitis bei Erwachsenen“ sind die Darstellung des Projektes und des Erstellungswegs zur S1-Leitlinie, die Erläuterung der klinischen Relevanz der Klassifikation EAES 2015, die wissenschaftliche Begründung der wichtigsten Empfehlungen und die Darstellung stadiengerechter Therapieoptionen.

Dr. med. Mihailo Andric

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Statement of problem

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Update Chirurgie