Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Annals of Surgical Oncology
Erschienen in: Annals of Surgical Oncology 3/2011

01.03.2011 | Breast Oncology

Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia in Directional Vacuum-Assisted Biopsy of Breast Microcalcifications: Considerations for Surgical Excision

verfasst von: Christopher V. Nguyen, MD, Constance T. Albarracin, MD, Gary J. Whitman, MD, Adriana Lopez, MS, Nour Sneige, MD

Erschienen in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Ausgabe 3/2011

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Our goal was to analyze clinicopathologic features of patients with atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) diagnosed on directional vacuum-assisted biopsy (DVAB) targeting microcalcifications to identify factors predicting the presence of carcinoma.

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively evaluated the clinical, mammographic, and histologic features of 140 patients with DVAB-diagnosed ADH who underwent either segmental excision (86.4%) or mammographic follow-up (≥2 years; 13.6%). Cases with mass lesions or ipsilateral cancer were excluded.

Results

In 16 cases, carcinoma was found on excision. All cases without excision showed no new abnormalities on mammographic follow-up. Only the amount of calcifications removed (≤95%) significantly correlated with the rate of upgrade of ADH to carcinoma (P = .037). Significant histologic predictors of upgrade to carcinoma included number of terminal duct-lobular units (TDLU; >2) involved (P = .0306), presence of significant cytologic atypia suspicious for intermediate or high-grade carcinoma (P < .0001), and necrosis (P = .0006). Among ADH cases without significant atypia and/or necrosis, the extent of ADH (≤2 vs. >2 TDLU involved) was not a significant predictor of carcinoma (P = 1.0000).

Conclusions

ADH associated with calcifications in the absence of a mass lesion can be categorized into different risk groups using a multidisciplinary approach with correlation of histologic and mammographic findings. ADH lesions with significant cytologic atypia and/or necrosis are most likely to be associated with carcinoma and should be excised. ADH without these features, regardless of extent of involvement, and with >95% removal of the targeted calcifications, is associated with a minimal risk (<3%) of carcinoma and may undergo mammographic follow-up only.
Literatur
1.
Adrales G, Turk P, Wallace T, Bird R, Norton HJ, Greene F. Is surgical excision necessary for atypical ductal hyperplasia of the breast diagnosed by Mammotome? Am J Surg. 2000;180:313–5.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Bedei L, Falcini F, Sanna PA, Casadei Giunchi D, Innocenti MP, Vignutelli P, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia of the breast: the controversial management of a borderline lesion: experience of 47 cases diagnosed at vacuum-assisted biopsy. Breast. 2006;15:196–202.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Brem RF, Behrndt VS, Sanow L, Gatewood OM. Atypical ductal hyperplasia: histologic underestimation of carcinoma in tissue harvested from impalpable breast lesions using 11-gauge stereotactically guided directional vacuum-assisted biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;172:1405–7.PubMed
4.
Brown TA, Wall JW, Christensen ED, Smith DV, Holt CA, Carter PL, et al. Atypical hyperplasia in the era of stereotactic core needle biopsy. J Surg Oncol. 1998;67:168–73.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Burak WE, Jr., Owens KE, Tighe MB, Kemp L, Dinges SA, Hitchcock CL, et al. Vacuum-assisted stereotactic breast biopsy: histologic underestimation of malignant lesions. Arch Surg. 2000;135:700–3.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Burbank F. Stereotactic breast biopsy of atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ lesions: improved accuracy with directional, vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiology. 1997;202:843–7.PubMed
7.
Cangiarella J, Waisman J, Symmans WF, Gross J, Cohen JM, Wu H, et al. Mammotome core biopsy for mammary microcalcification: analysis of 160 biopsies from 142 women with surgical and radiologic followup. Cancer. 2001;91:173–7.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Darling ML, Smith DN, Lester SC, Kaelin C, Selland DL, Denison CM, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ as revealed by large-core needle breast biopsy: results of surgical excision. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;175:1341–6.PubMed
9.
Eby PR, Ochsner JE, DeMartini WB, Allison KH, Peacock S, Lehman CD. Is surgical excision necessary for focal atypical ductal hyperplasia found at stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy? Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:3232–8.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Forgeard C, Benchaib M, Guerin N, Thiesse P, Mignotte H, Faure C, et al. Is surgical biopsy mandatory in case of atypical ductal hyperplasia on 11-gauge core needle biopsy? A retrospective study of 300 patients. Am J Surg. 2008;196:339–45.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Fuhrman GM, Cederbom GJ, Bolton JS, King TA, Duncan JL, Champaign JL, et al. Image-guided core-needle breast biopsy is an accurate technique to evaluate patients with nonpalpable imaging abnormalities. Ann Surg. 1998;227:932–9.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Gadzala DE, Cederbom GJ, Bolton JS, McKinnon WM, Farr GH Jr, Champaign J, et al. Appropriate management of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed by stereotactic core needle breast biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 1997;4:283–6.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Jackman RJ, Birdwell RL, Ikeda DM. Atypical ductal hyperplasia: can some lesions be defined as probably benign after stereotactic 11-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy, eliminating the recommendation for surgical excision? Radiology. 2002;224:548–54.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Jackman RJ, Burbank F, Parker SH, Evans WP 3rd, Lechner MC, Richardson TR, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at stereotactic breast biopsy: improved reliability with 14-gauge, directional, vacuum-assisted biopsy. Radiology. 1997;204:485–8.PubMed
15.
Jackman RJ, Nowels KW, Rodriguez-Soto J, Marzoni FA Jr, Finkelstein SI, Shepard MJ. Stereotactic, automated, large-core needle biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions: false-negative and histologic underestimation rates after long-term follow-up. Radiology. 1999;210:799–805.PubMed
16.
Jackman RJ, Nowels KW, Shepard MJ, Finkelstein SI, Marzoni FA Jr. Stereotaxic large-core needle biopsy of 450 nonpalpable breast lesions with surgical correlation in lesions with cancer or atypical hyperplasia. Radiology. 1994;193:91–5.PubMed
17.
Jang M, Cho N, Moon WK, Park JS, Seong MH, Park IA. Underestimation of atypical ductal hyperplasia at sonographically guided core biopsy of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191:1347–51.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Lai JT, Burrowes P, MacGregor JH. Diagnostic accuracy of a stereotaxically guided vacuum-assisted large-core breast biopsy program in Canada. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2001;52:223–7.PubMed
19.
Lee AH, Denley HE, Pinder SE, Ellis IO, Elston CW, Vujovic P, et al. Excision biopsy findings of patients with breast needle core biopsies reported as suspicious of malignancy (B4) or lesion of uncertain malignant potential (B3). Histopathology. 2003;42:331–6.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Liberman L, Cohen MA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Hann LE, Rosen PP. Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed at stereotaxic core biopsy of breast lesions: an indication for surgical biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;164:1111–3.PubMed
21.
Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Glassman JR, Abramson AF, Morris EA, LaTrenta LR, et al. Analysis of cancers not diagnosed at stereotactic core breast biopsy. Radiology. 1997;203:151–7.PubMed
22.
Liberman L, Smolkin JH, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Abramson AF, Rosen PP. Calcification retrieval at stereotactic, 11-gauge, directional, vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Radiology. 1998;208:251–60.PubMed
23.
Lin PH, Clyde JC, Bates DM, Garcia JM, Matsumoto GH, Girvin GW. Accuracy of stereotactic core-needle breast biopsy in atypical ductal hyperplasia. Am J Surg. 1998;175:380–2.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Lourenco AP, Mainiero MB, Lazarus E, Giri D, Schepps B. Stereotactic breast biopsy: comparison of histologic underestimation rates with 11- and 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189:W275–9.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Meyer JE, Smith DN, Lester SC, Kaelin C, DiPiro PJ, Denison CM, et al. Large-core needle biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions. JAMA. 1999;281:1638–41.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Moore MM, Hargett CW, 3rd, Hanks JB, Fajardo LL, Harvey JA, Frierson HF Jr, et al. Association of breast cancer with the finding of atypical ductal hyperplasia at core breast biopsy. Ann Surg. 1997;225:726–31; discussion 731–3.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Nguyen M, McCombs MM, Ghandehari S, Kim A, Wang H, Barsky SH, et al. An update on core needle biopsy for radiologically detected breast lesions. Cancer. 1996;78:2340–5.PubMedCrossRef
28.
O’Hea B, Tornos C. Mild ductal atypia after large-core needle biopsy of the breast: is surgical excision always necessary? Surgery. 2000;128:738–43.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Pandelidis S, Heiland D, Jones D, Stough K, Trapeni J, Suliman Y. Accuracy of 11-gauge vacuum-assisted core biopsy of mammographic breast lesions. Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10:43–7.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Philpotts LE, Lee CH, Horvath LJ, Lange RC, Carter D, Tocino I. Underestimation of breast cancer with II-gauge vacuum suction biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;175:1047–50.PubMed
31.
Rosen PP. Rosen’s Breast Pathology. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2009.
32.
Sohn V, Arthurs Z, Herbert G, Keylock J, Perry J, Eckert M, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia: improved accuracy with the 11-gauge vacuum-assisted versus the 14-gauge core biopsy needle. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:2497–501.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Teng-Swan Ho J, Tan PH, Hee SW, Su-Lin Wong J. Underestimation of malignancy of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed on 11-gauge stereotactically guided Mammotome breast biopsy: an Asian breast screen experience. Breast. 2008;17:401–6.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Tocino I GB, Carter D. Surgical biopsy findings in patients with atypical hyperplasia diagnosed by stereotaxic core needle biopsy. Ann Surg Oncol. 1996;3:483–8.CrossRef
35.
Winchester DJ, Bernstein JR, Jeske JM, Nicholson MH, Hahn EA, Goldschmidt RA, et al. Upstaging of atypical ductal hyperplasia after vacuum-assisted 11-gauge stereotactic core needle biopsy. Arch Surg. 2003;138:619–22; discussion 622–3.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, Rados MS. Atypical hyperplastic lesions of the female breast. A long-term follow-up study. Cancer. 1985;55:2698–708.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Page DL, Rogers LW. Combined histologic and cytologic criteria for the diagnosis of mammary atypical ductal hyperplasia. Hum Pathol. 1992;23:1095–7.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Tavassoli FA. Pathology of the Breast. Stamford, CT: Appleton & Lange, 1999.
39.
Acheson MB, Patton RG, Howisey RL, Lane RF, Morgan A. Histologic correlation of image-guided core biopsy with excisional biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions. Arch Surg. 1997;132:815–8; discussion 819–21.PubMed
40.
Dahlstrom JE, Jain S, Sutton T, Sutton S. Diagnostic accuracy of stereotactic core biopsy in a mammographic breast cancer screening programme. Histopathology. 1996;28:421–7.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Dahlstrom JE, Sutton S, Jain S. Histological precision of stereotactic core biopsy in diagnosis of malignant and premalignant breast lesions. Histopathology. 1996;28:537–41.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Liberman L, Abramson AF. Nondiagnostic stereotaxic core breast biopsy: results of rebiopsy. Radiology. 1996;198:323–5.PubMed
43.
Harvey JM, Sterrett GF, Frost FA. Atypical ductal hyperplasia and atypia of uncertain significance in core biopsies from mammographically detected lesions: correlation with excision diagnosis. Pathology. 2002;34:410–6.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Ioffe OB, Berg WA, Silverberg SG, Kumar D. Mammographic-histopathologic correlation of large-core needle biopsies of the breast. Mod Pathol. 1998;11:721–7.PubMed
45.
Philpotts LE, Shaheen NA, Carter D, Lange RC, Lee CH. Comparison of rebiopsy rates after stereotactic core needle biopsy of the breast with 11-gauge vacuum suction probe versus 14-gauge needle and automatic gun. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999;172:683–7.PubMed
46.
Doren E, Hulvat M, Norton J, Rajan P, Sarker S, Aranha G, Yao K. Predicting cancer on excision of atypical ductal hyperplasia. Am J Surg. 2008;195:358–61; discussion 361–2.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Faour I, Al-Salam S, El-Terifi H, El Taji H. The use of a vacuum-assisted biopsy device (Mammotome) in the early detection of breast cancer in the United Arab Emirates. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1138:108–13.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Liberman L, Kaplan JB, Morris EA, Abramson AF, Menell JH, Dershaw DD. To excise or to sample the mammographic target: what is the goal of stereotactic 11-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;179:679–83.PubMed
49.
Maganini RO, Klem DA, Huston BJ, Bruner ES, Jacobs HK. Upgrade rate of core biopsy-determined atypical ductal hyperplasia by open excisional biopsy. Am J Surg. 2001;182:355–8.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Margolin FR, Kaufman L, Jacobs RP, Denny SR, Schrumpf JD. Stereotactic core breast biopsy of malignant calcifications: diagnostic yield of cores with and cores without calcifications on specimen radiographs. Radiology. 2004;233:251–4.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Plantade R, Hammou JC, Fighiera M, Aubanel D, Scotto A, Gueret S. Underestimation of breast carcinoma with 11-gauge stereotactically guided directional vacuum-assisted biopsy. J Radiol. 2004;85:391–401.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Rao A, Parker S, Ratzer E, Stephens J, Fenoglio M. Atypical ductal hyperplasia of the breast diagnosed by 11-gauge directional vacuum-assisted biopsy. Am J Surg. 2002;184:534–7; discussion 537.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Sneige N, Lim SC, Whitman GJ, Krishnamurthy S, Sahin AA, Smith TL, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosis by directional vacuum-assisted stereotactic biopsy of breast microcalcifications. Considerations for surgical excision. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;119:248–53.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Travade A, Isnard A, Bouchet F, Bagard C. Non-palpable breast lesions and core needle biopsy with Mammotome 11G: is surgery required in patients with atypical ductal hyperplasia? J Radiol. 2006;87:307–10.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Zografos GC, Zagouri F, Sergentanis TN, Nonni A, Koulocheri D, Fotou M, et al. Minimizing underestimation rate of microcalcifications excised via vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: a blind study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;109:397–402.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Jackman RJ, Marzoni FA, Jr., Nowels KW. Percutaneous removal of benign mammographic lesions: comparison of automated large-core and directional vacuum-assisted stereotactic biopsy techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998;171:1325–30.PubMed
57.
Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Morris EA, Abramson AF, Thornton CM, Rosen PP. Clip placement after stereotactic vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. Radiology. 1997;205:417–22.PubMed
58.
Parker SH, Klaus AJ, McWey PJ, Schilling KJ, Cupples TE, Duchesne N, et al. Sonographically guided directional vacuum-assisted breast biopsy using a handheld device. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177: 405–8.PubMed
59.
Perez-Fuentes JA, Longobardi IR, Acosta VF, Marin CE, Liberman L. Sonographically guided directional vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: preliminary experience in Venezuela. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177:1459–63.PubMed
60.
Houssami N, Ciatto S, Bilous M, Vezzosi V, Bianchi S. Borderline breast core needle histology: predictive values for malignancy in lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3). Br J Cancer. 2007;96:1253–7.PubMedCrossRef
61.
Houssami N, Ciatto S, Ellis I, Ambrogetti D. Underestimation of malignancy of breast core-needle biopsy: concepts and precise overall and category-specific estimates. Cancer. 2007;109:487–95.PubMedCrossRef
62.
Liberman L, Holland AE, Marjan D, Murray MP, Bartella L, Morris EA, et al. Underestimation of atypical ductal hyperplasia at MRI-guided 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:684–90.PubMedCrossRef
63.
Orel SG, Rosen M, Mies C, Schnall MD. MR imaging-guided 9-gauge vacuum-assisted core-needle breast biopsy: initial experience. Radiology. 2006;238:54–61.PubMedCrossRef
64.
Stolier AJ. Stereotactic breast biopsy: a surgical series. J Am Coll Surg. 1997;185:224–8.PubMed
65.
Wiratkapun C, Wibulpholprasert B, Lertsithichai P, Pulpinyo K, Wongwaisayawan S. Breast cancer underestimation rate of atypical ductal hyperplasia diagnosed by core-needle biopsy under imaging guidance. J Med Assoc Thai. 2005;88:460–6.PubMed
66.
Tourasse C, Sebag P, Denier J, J, Rouyer N, Donné C. Value of stereotactic breast core biopsy in patients with atypical ductal hyperplasia. J Radiol. 2008;89:40–6.
67.
Bonnett M, Wallis T, Rossmann M, Pernick NL, Bouwman D, Carolin KA, et al. Histopathologic analysis of atypical lesions in image-guided core breast biopsies. Mod Pathol. 2003;16:154–60.PubMedCrossRef
68.
Wagoner MJ, Laronga C, Acs G. Extent and histologic pattern of atypical ductal hyperplasia present on core needle biopsy specimens of the breast can predict ductal carcinoma in situ in subsequent excision. Am J Clin Pathol. 2009;131:112–21.PubMedCrossRef
69.
Ely KA, Carter BA, Jensen RA, Simpson JF, Page DL. Core biopsy of the breast with atypical ductal hyperplasia: a probabilistic approach to reporting. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001;25:1017–21.PubMedCrossRef
70.
Yeh IT, Dimitrov D, Otto P, Miller AR, Kahlenberg MS, Cruz A. Pathologic review of atypical hyperplasia identified by image-guided breast needle core biopsy. Correlation with excision specimen. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003;127:49–54.PubMed
71.
Renshaw AA, Cartagena N, Schenkman RH, Derhagopian RP, Gould EW. Atypical ductal hyperplasia in breast core needle biopsies. Correlation of size of the lesion, complete removal of the lesion, and the incidence of carcinoma in follow-up biopsies. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001;116:92–6.PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia in Directional Vacuum-Assisted Biopsy of Breast Microcalcifications: Considerations for Surgical Excision
verfasst von
Christopher V. Nguyen, MD
Constance T. Albarracin, MD
Gary J. Whitman, MD
Adriana Lopez, MS
Nour Sneige, MD
Publikationsdatum
01.03.2011
Verlag
Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Ausgabe 3/2011
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Elektronische ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-010-1127-8

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2011

Annals of Surgical Oncology 3/2011 Zur Ausgabe

Translational Research and Biomarkers

Expression and Clinical Significance of Hepatoma-Derived Growth Factor as a Prognostic Factor in Human Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma

Original Article - Pancreatic Tumors

Single-Access Transumbilical Diagnostic Laparoscopy for Pancreatic Tumor Using Curved and Reusable Instruments

Endocrine Tumors

The Value of Postoperative Parathyroid Hormone Levels in Predicting the Need for Long-Term Vitamin D Supplementation after Total Thyroidectomy

Hepatobiliary Tumors

Predicting Individual Prognosis for Patients Undergoing Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastases

Urologic Oncology

Impact of Surgical Experience on In-Hospital Complication Rates in Patients Undergoing Minimally Invasive Prostatectomy: A Population-Based Study

Translational Research and Biomarkers

Epithelial–Mesenchymal Transition and LOXL2: Consideration Continues

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

23.04.2024 | Ablationstherapie | Nachrichten

Wie erfolgreich ist eine Re-Ablation nach Rezidiv?

23.04.2024 | Appendizitis | Nachrichten

Hinter dieser Appendizitis steckte ein Erreger

23.04.2024 | Operationsvorbereitung | Nachrichten

Mehr Schaden als Nutzen durch präoperatives Aussetzen von GLP-1-Agonisten?

19.04.2024 | EAU 2024 | Kongressbericht | Nachrichten

Ureterstriktur: Innovative OP-Technik bewährt sich
weitere anzeigen

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
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

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
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.

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
Berufsverband der Deutschen Chirurgie e.V.