nach oben

15.02.2024 | Original Articles

A Systematic Quality Assessment of Online Resources on Eyelid Ptosis Using the Modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (mEQIP) Tool

verfasst von: Marco Marcasciano, Emanuele Vittori, Antonio Greto Ciriaco, Federico Lo Torto, Giuseppe Giannaccare, Vincenzo Scorcia, Francesco Stagno D’Alcontres, Chad Chang, Caterina Colica, Manfredi Greco

Erschienen in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Eyelid ptosis is an underestimated pathology deeply affecting patients’ quality of life.

Internet has increasingly become the major source of information regarding health care, and patients often browse on websites to acquire an initial knowledge on the subject. However, there is lack of data concerning the quality of available information focusing on the eyelid ptosis and its treatment. We systematically evaluated online information quality on eyelid ptosis by using the “Ensuring Quality Information for Patients” (EQIP) scale.

Materials and Methods

Google, Yahoo and Bing have been searched for the keywords “Eyelid ptosis,” “Eyelid ptosis surgery” and “Blepharoptosis.” The first 50 hits were included, evaluating the quality of information with the expanded EQIP tool. Websites in English and intended for general non-medical public use were included. Irrelevant documents, videos, pictures, blogs and articles with no access were excluded.

Results

Out of 138 eligible websites, 79 (57,7%) addressed more than 20 EQIP items, with an overall median score of 20,2. Only 2% discussed procedure complication rates. The majority fail to disclose severe complications and quantifying risks, fewer than 18% clarified the potential need for additional treatments. Surgical procedure details were lacking, and there was insufficient information about pre-/postoperative precautions for patients. Currently, online quality information has not improved since COVID-19 pandemic.

Conclusions

This study highlights the urgent requirement for improved patient-oriented websites adhering to international standards for plastic and oculoplastic surgery. Healthcare providers should effectively guide their patients in finding trustworthy and reliable eyelid ptosis correction information.

Level of Evidence V

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Finsterer J (2003) Ptosis: causes, presentation, and management. Aesthetic Plast Surg 27(3):193–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-003-0127-5CrossRefPubMed

Díaz-Manera J, Luna S, Roig C (2018) Ocular ptosis: differential diagnosis and treatment. Curr Opin Neurol 31(5):618–627. https://doi.org/10.1097/WCO.0000000000000600. (PMID: 30048338)CrossRefPubMed

Bacharach J, Lee WW, Harrison AR, Freddo TF (2021) A review of acquired blepharoptosis: prevalence, diagnosis, and current treatment options. Eye (Lond) 35(9):2468–2481. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-021-01547-5CrossRefPubMed

Griepentrog GJ, Diehl NN, Mohney BG (2011) Incidence and demographics of childhood ptosis. Ophthalmology 118(6):1180–1183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2010.10.026CrossRefPubMed

Lee YG, Son BJ, Lee KH, Lee SY, Kim CY (2018) Clinical and demographic characteristics of blepharoptosis in korea: a 24-year experience including 2328 patients. Korean J Ophthalmol 32(4):249–256. https://doi.org/10.3341/kjo.2017.0118CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Sridharan GV, Tallis RC, Leatherbarrow B, Forman WM (1995) A community survey of ptosis of the eyelid and pupil size of elderly people. Age Ageing 24(1):21–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/24.1.21CrossRefPubMed

Hashemi H, Khabazkhoob M, Emamian MH, Yekta A, Jafari A, Nabovati P, Fotouhi A (2016) The prevalence of ptosis in an Iranian adult population. J Curr Ophthalmol. 28(3):142–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joco.2016.04.005CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kim MH, Cho J, Zhao D, Woo KI, Kim YD, Kim S, Yang SW (2017) Prevalence and associated factors of blepharoptosis in Korean adult population: The Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2008–2011. Eye (Lond) 31(6):940–946. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2017.43CrossRefPubMed

Wald HS, Dube CE, Anthony DC (2007) Untangling the Web–the impact of Internet use on health care and the physician-patient relationship. Patient Educ Couns 68(3):218–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2007.05.016CrossRefPubMed

10.

Tijerina JD, Morrison SD, Nolan IT, Vail DG, Lee GK, Nazerali R (2020) Analysis and interpretation of google trends data on public interest in cosmetic body procedures. Aesthet Surg J 40(1):N34–N43. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjz051CrossRef

11.

Shamil E, North AS, Fan KS, D’Souza H, Kaladjiska M, D’Souza A (2022) The quality of online information on cosmetic injectable fillers: current status. Facial Plast Surg 38(2):124–130. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1741502CrossRefPubMed

12.

Wollmann K, der Keylen PV, Tomandl J, Meerpohl JJ, Sofroniou M, Maun A, Voigt-Radloff S (2021) The information needs of internet users and their requirements for online health information-A scoping review of qualitative and quantitative studies. Patient Educ Couns 104(8):1904–1932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2021.01.020CrossRefPubMed

13.

Lo Torto F, Marcasciano M, Frattaroli JM, Kaciulyte J, Mori FLR, Redi U, Casella D, Cigna E, Ribuffo D (2020) Quality assessment of online information on body contouring surgery in postbariatric patient. Aesthetic Plast Surg 44(3):839–846. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-019-01535-xCrossRefPubMed

14.

Marcasciano M, Frattaroli J, Mori FLR, Lo Torto F, Fioramonti P, Cavalieri E, Kaciulyte J, Greco M, Casella D, Ribuffo D (2019) The new trend of pre-pectoral breast reconstruction: an objective evaluation of the quality of online information for patients undergoing breast reconstruction. Aesthetic Plast Surg 43(3):593–599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-019-01311-xCrossRefPubMed

15.

Frattaroli JM, Lo Torto F, Turriziani G, Bruno E, Marcasciano M, Ribuffo D (2022) Quality of online information about migraine headache surgery. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 75(9):3603–3607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2022.06.001CrossRefPubMed

16.

Vought R, Vought V, Herzog I, Greenstein SA (2023) EQIP quality assessment of refractive surgery resources on YouTube. Semin Ophthalmol. 38(8):768–772. https://doi.org/10.1080/08820538.2023.2209168CrossRefPubMed

17.

Charvet-Berard AI, Chopard P, Perneger TV (2008) Measuring quality of patient information documents with an expanded EQIP scale. Patient Educ Couns 70(3):407–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2007.11.018CrossRefPubMed

18.

Vaona A, Marcon A, Rava M, Buzzetti R, Sartori M, Abbinante C, Moser A, Seddaiu A, Prontera M, Quaglio A, Pallazzoni P, Sartori V, Rigon G (2011) Quality evaluation of JAMA patient pages on diabetes using the ensuring quality information for patient (EQIP) tool. Prim Care Diabetes 5(4):257–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcd.2011.08.001CrossRefPubMed

19.

Melloul E, Raptis DA, Oberkofler CE, Dutkowski P, Lesurtel M, Clavien PA (2012) Donor information for living donor liver transplantation: where can comprehensive information be found? Liver Transpl 18(8):892–900. https://doi.org/10.1002/lt.23442CrossRefPubMed

20.

Palma AF, Zuk G, Raptis DA, Franck S, Eylert G, Frueh FS, Guggenheim M, Shafighi M (2016) Quality of information for women seeking breast augmentation in the Internet. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 50(5):262–271. https://doi.org/10.3109/2000656X.2016.1154469CrossRefPubMed

21.

Vetter D, Ruhwinkel H, Raptis DA, Bueter M (2018) Quality assessment of information on bariatric surgery websites. Obes Surg 28(5):1240–1247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-017-2983-0CrossRefPubMed

22.

Frueh FS, Palma AF, Raptis DA, Graf CP, Giovanoli P, Calcagni M (2015) Carpal tunnel syndrome: analysis of online patient information with the EQIP tool. Chir Main 34(3):113–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.main.2015.04.003CrossRefPubMed

23.

Zuk G, Reinisch KB, Raptis DA, Fertsch S, Guggenheim M, Palma AF (2017) Dupuytren disease: is there enough comprehensive patient information on the internet? Interact J Med Res. 6(1):e7. https://doi.org/10.2196/ijmr.7822CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Karamitros GA, Kitsos NA (2018) Clefts of the lip and palate: is the Internet a trustworthy source of information for patients? Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 47(9):1114–1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2018.03.003CrossRefPubMed

25.

Jo JH, Kim EJ, Kim JR, Kim MJ, Chung JW, Park JW (2018) Quality and readability of internet-based information on halitosis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 125(3):215–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oooo.2017.12.001CrossRefPubMed

26.

Carlsson T, Axelsson O (2017) Patient information websites about medically induced second-trimester abortions: a descriptive study of quality, suitability, and issues. J Med Internet Res 19(1):e8. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6380CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Gkouskou K, Markaki A, Vasilaki M, Roidis A, Vlastos I (2011) Quality of nutritional information on the internet in health and disease. Hippokratia 15(4):304–307PubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Moult B, Franck LS, Brady H (2004) Ensuring quality information for patients: development and preliminary validation of a new instrument to improve the quality of written health care information. Health Expect 7(2):165–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2004.00273.xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

McCool ME, Wahl J, Schlecht I, Apfelbacher C (2015) Evaluating written patient information for Eczema in German: comparing the reliability of two instruments, DISCERN and EQIP. PLoS ONE 10(10):e0139895. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139895CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

StatCounter Global Stats (2022) Desktop, tablet and console search engine market share worldwide. https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share/desktop-tablet-console/worldwide#monthly-201611-201702. Accessed 05/01/2023

31.

Lo Torto F, Mori FR, Bruno E, Giacomini G, Turriziani G, Firmani G, Marcasciano M, Ribuffo D (2023) Gender dysphoria: quality of online information for gender reassignment surgery. JPRAS Open. 1(38):117–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpra.2023.08.008CrossRef

32.

Eysenbach G, Köhler C (2002) How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. BMJ 324(7337):573–577. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7337.573CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

WHO (n.d.) Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. https://www.who.int/europe/emergencies/situations/covid-19. Accessed 05/01/2023

34.

Kim KK, Granick MS, Baum GA, Beninger F, Cahill KV, Donnelly KC, Kaidi AA, Kang AS, Loeding L, Loyo M, Patel PA, Roostaeian J, Taghva GH, Varkarakis GM (2022) American society of plastic surgeons evidence-based clinical practice guideline: eyelid surgery for upper visual field improvement. Plast Reconstr Surg 150(2):419e–434e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000009329CrossRefPubMed

35.

de la Torre JI, Martin SA, De Cordier BC, Al-Hakeem MS, Collawn SS, Vásconez LO (2003) Aesthetic eyelid ptosis correction: a review of technique and cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 112(2):655–660. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.PRS.0000070985.40897.69CrossRefPubMed

36.

Friedland JA, Lalonde DH, Rohrich RJ (2010) An evidence-based approach to blepharoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 126(6):2222–2229. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181f949a2CrossRefPubMed

37.

Hesse BW, Nelson DE, Kreps GL, Croyle RT, Arora NK, Rimer BK, Viswanath K (2005) Trust and sources of health information: the impact of the Internet and its implications for health care providers: findings from the first Health Information National Trends Survey. Arch Intern Med 165(22):2618–2624. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.165.22.2618CrossRefPubMed

38.

Gold DT, McClung B (2006) Approaches to patient education: emphasizing the long-term value of compliance and persistence. Am J Med 119(4 Suppl 1):S32–S37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.12.021CrossRefPubMed

39.

Bianco A, Zucco R, Nobile CG, Pileggi C, Pavia M (2013) Parents seeking health-related information on the Internet: cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res 15(9):e204. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2752CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Fox S (2005) Health information online. Pew Internet & American Life Project Report. Available from: http://www.pewinternet.org/2005/05/17/health-information-online/

41.

Almazan AN, Keuroghlian AS (2021) Association between gender-affirming surgeries and mental health outcomes. JAMA Surg 156(7):611–618. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2021.0952CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Simonsen RK, Giraldi A, Kristensen E, Hald GM (2016) Long-term follow-up of individuals undergoing sex reassignment surgery: psychiatric morbidity and mortality. Nord J Psychiatry 70(4):241–247. https://doi.org/10.3109/08039488.2015.1081405CrossRefPubMed

43.

Daraz L, Morrow AS, Ponce OJ, Beuschel B, Farah MH, Katabi A, Alsawas M, Majzoub AM, Benkhadra R, Seisa MO, Ding JF, Prokop L, Murad MH (2019) Can patients trust online health information? A meta-narrative systematic review addressing the quality of health information on the internet. J Gen Intern Med 34(9):1884–1891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05109-0CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA (1997) Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: caveant lector et viewor–Let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA 277(15):1244–1245CrossRefPubMed

45.

Impicciatore P, Pandolfini C, Casella N, Bonati M (1997) Reliability of health information for the public on the World Wide Web: systematic survey of advice on managing fever in children at home. BMJ 314(7098):1875–1879. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7098.1875CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Bower H (1996) Internet sees growth of unverified health claims. BMJ 313(7054):381. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.313.7054.381CrossRefPubMed

47.

Chalmers I (2001) Invalid health information is potentially lethal. BMJ 322(7292):998PubMedPubMedCentral

48.

Zuk G, Palma AF, Eylert G, Raptis DA, Guggenheim M, Shafighi M (2016) Systematic review of quality of patient information on liposuction in the internet. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 4(6):e759. https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000000798CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

49.

Kwitko GM, Patel BC (2023) Blepharoplasty ptosis surgery. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing. PMID: 29493921.

50.

Porteous AM, Haridas AS, Collin JRO, Verity DH (2018) Upper lid ptosis surgery: what is the optimal interval for the postoperative review? A retrospective review of 300 cases. Eye (Lond) 32(4):757–762. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2017.294CrossRefPubMed

51.

SooHoo JR, Davies BW, Allard FD, Durairaj VD (2014) Congenital ptosis. Surv Ophthalmol 59(5):483–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.survophthal.2014.01.005CrossRefPubMed

52.

Mehta VJ, Perry JD (2013) Blepharoptosis repair outcomes from trainee versus experienced staff as the primary surgeon. Am J Ophthalmol 155(2):397-403.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2012.08.006CrossRefPubMed

53.

Koka K, Patel BC (2023) Ptosis correction. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing. PMID: 30969650.

54.

Galanis C, Sanchez IS, Roostaeian J, Crisera C (2013) Factors influencing patient interest in plastic surgery and the process of selecting a surgeon. Aesthet Surg J 33(4):585–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090820X13481228CrossRefPubMed

55.

Fan KS, Ghani SA, Machairas N, Lenti L, Fan KH, Richardson D, Scott A, Raptis DA (2020) COVID-19 prevention and treatment information on the internet: a systematic analysis and quality assessment. BMJ Open 10(9):e040487. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040487CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

56.

Dorfman RG, Mahmood E, Ren A, Turin SY, Vaca EE, Fine NA, Schierle CF (2019) Google ranking of plastic surgeons values social media presence over academic pedigree and experience. Aesthet Surg J 39(4):447–451. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjy285CrossRefPubMed

57.

Lopez J, Lopez S, Means J, Mohan R, Soni A, Milton J, Tufaro AP, May JW Jr, Dorafshar A (2015) Financial conflicts of interest: an association between funding and findings in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 136(5):690e–697e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000001718CrossRefPubMed

58.

George CF, Waters WE, Nicholas JA (1983) Prescription information leaflets: a pilot study in general practice. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 287(6400):1193–1196. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.287.6400.1193CrossRefPubMed

59.

Bunker TD (1983) An information leaflet for surgical patients. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 65(4):242–243PubMedPubMedCentral

60.

Carmichael SP 2nd, Veasey EC, Davenport DL, Jay K, Bernard AC (2018) Patient-surgeon relationship influences outcomes in bariatric patients. Am Surg 84(12):1850–1855CrossRefPubMed

61.

Barry MJ (2012) Shared decision making: informing and involving patients to do the right thing in health care. J Ambul Care Manage 35(2):90–98. https://doi.org/10.1097/JAC.0b013e318249482fCrossRefPubMed

62.

Elwyn G, Edwards A, Kinnersley P, Grol R (2000) Shared decision making and the concept of equipoise: the competences of involving patients in healthcare choices. Br J Gen Pract 50(460):892–899PubMedPubMedCentral

63.

Gustafson DH, Hawkins RP, Boberg EW, McTavish F, Owens B, Wise M, Berhe H, Pingree S (2002) CHESS: 10 years of research and development in consumer health informatics for broad populations, including the underserved. Int J Med Inform 65(3):169–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1386-5056(02)00048-5CrossRefPubMed

64.

Baker L, Wagner TH, Singer S, Bundorf MK (2003) Use of the Internet and e-mail for health care information: results from a national survey. JAMA 289(18):2400–2406. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.289.18.2400CrossRefPubMed

65.

Rainie L, Fox S (2000) The online health care revolution. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/2000/11/26/the-online-health-care-revolution. Accessed 05/01/2023

66.

Ladhar S, Koshman SL, Yang F, Turgeon R (2022) Evaluation of online written medication educational resources for people living with heart failure. CJC Open. 4(10):858–865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjco.2022.07.004CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

67.

Silver MP (2015) Patient perspectives on online health information and communication with doctors: a qualitative study of patients 50 years old and over. J Med Internet Res 17(1):e19. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3588CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

68.

Greco M, Vitagliano T, Fiorillo MA, Greto CA (2012) A new technique of upper eyelid blepharoplasty using the orbicularis muscle flap. Aesthetic Plast Surg 36(1):18–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-011-9760-6CrossRefPubMed

Titel: A Systematic Quality Assessment of Online Resources on Eyelid Ptosis Using the Modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (mEQIP) Tool
verfasst von: Marco Marcasciano
Emanuele Vittori
Antonio Greto Ciriaco
Federico Lo Torto
Giuseppe Giannaccare
Vincenzo Scorcia
Francesco Stagno D’Alcontres
Chad Chang
Caterina Colica
Manfredi Greco
Publikationsdatum: 15.02.2024
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
Print ISSN: 0364-216X
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-5241
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-024-03862-0

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Echinokokkose medikamentös behandeln oder operieren?

06.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Die Therapie von Echinokokkosen sollte immer in spezialisierten Zentren erfolgen. Eine symptomlose Echinokokkose kann – egal ob von Hunde- oder Fuchsbandwurm ausgelöst – konservativ erfolgen. Wenn eine Op. nötig ist, kann es sinnvoll sein, vorher Zysten zu leeren und zu desinfizieren.

Wie sieht der OP der Zukunft aus?

04.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Der OP in der Zukunft wird mit weniger Personal auskommen – nicht, weil die Technik das medizinische Fachpersonal verdrängt, sondern weil der Personalmangel es nötig macht.

Umsetzung der POMGAT-Leitlinie läuft

03.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Seit November 2023 gibt es evidenzbasierte Empfehlungen zum perioperativen Management bei gastrointestinalen Tumoren (POMGAT) auf S3-Niveau. Vieles wird schon entsprechend der Empfehlungen durchgeführt. Wo es im Alltag noch hapert, zeigt eine Umfrage in einem Klinikverbund.

Recycling im OP – möglich, aber teuer

02.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Auch wenn sich Krankenhäuser nachhaltig und grün geben – sie tragen aktuell erheblich zu den CO₂-Emissionen bei und produzieren jede Menge Müll. Ein Pilotprojekt aus Bonn zeigt, dass viele Op.-Abfälle wiederverwertet werden können.

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

Background

Materials and Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of Evidence V

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

Update Chirurgie