nach oben

Die Orthopädie

Erschienen in:

09.08.2022 | Endoprothetik | Leitthema

Marktübersicht: Roboterassistierte Endoprothetik

Aktuelle Robotersysteme, Lernkurven und Kostenanalyse

verfasst von: Dr. Lars-René Tuecking, Prof. Dr. Max Ettinger, Prof. Dr. Henning Windhagen, Dr. Peter Savov

Erschienen in: Die Orthopädie | Ausgabe 9/2022

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Zusammenfassung

Die roboterassistierte Endoprothetik findet seit Jahren einen rasanten Einzug in die klinische Routine. Die führenden Endoprothesenhersteller haben mittlerweile alle Robotersysteme auf dem Markt platziert, welche sich jedoch technisch untereinander deutlich unterscheiden. Die Systeme werden aktuell nach dem Autonomiegrad (aktiv vs. semiaktiv vs. passiv) und der Daten‑/Bildquelle (Bildgestützt: CT vs. Röntgen, bildlos) eingeteilt. Einzelne Systeme bieten bereits jetzt schon die Möglichkeit, roboterassistiert oder navigiert Hüftendoprothesen zu implantieren. Im folgenden Übersichtsartikel sollen die aktuell führend verwendeten Robotersysteme vorgestellt und hinsichtlich der Eigenschaften verglichen werden. Im Weiteren soll auf die Analyse der Lernkurven für die unterschiedlichen Systeme und auf aktuell vorhandene Kostenanalysemodelle eingegangen werden sowie ein Ausblick auf künftige Entwicklungen und Herausforderungen gegeben werden.

Ali M, Phillips D, Kamson A et al (2022) Learning curve of robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty for non-fellowship-trained orthopedic surgeons. Arthroplast Today 13:194–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2021.10.020CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Batailler C, White N, Ranaldi FM et al (2019) Improved implant position and lower revision rate with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27:1232–1240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-5081-5CrossRefPubMed

Bell C, Grau L, Orozco F et al (2021) The successful implementation of the Navio robotic technology required 29 cases. J Robot Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-021-01254-zCrossRefPubMed

Bell SW, Anthony I, Jones B et al (2016) Improved accuracy of component positioning with robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: data from a prospective, randomized controlled study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 98:627–635. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.15.00664CrossRefPubMed

Bellemans J, Vandenneucker H, Vanlauwe J (2007) Robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 464:111–116. https://doi.org/10.1097/BLO.0b013e318126c0c0CrossRefPubMed

Chen Z, Bhowmik-Stoker M, Palmer M et al (2022) Time-based learning curve for robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty: a multicenter study. J Knee Surg. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1744193CrossRefPubMed

Cho K‑J, Seon J‑K, Jang W‑Y et al (2018) Objective quantification of ligament balancing using VERASENSE in measured resection and modified gap balance total knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 19:266. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2190-8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Christen B, Tanner L, Ettinger M et al (2022) Comparative cost analysis of four different computer-assisted technologies to implant a total knee arthroplasty over conventional instrumentation. JPM 12:184. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm12020184CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Clement ND, Deehan DJ, Patton JT (2019) Robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for patients with isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis is cost-effective: a markov decision analysis. Bone Joint J 101:1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.101B9.BJJ-2018-1658.R1CrossRefPubMed

10.

Cobb J, Henckel J, Gomes P et al (2006) Hands-on robotic unicompartmental knee replacement: a prospective, randomised controlled study of the acrobot system. J Bone Joint Surg Br 88:188–197. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.88B2.17220CrossRefPubMed

11.

Cool CL, Jacofsky DJ, Seeger KA et al (2019) A 90-day episode-of-care cost analysis of robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty. J Comp Eff Res 8:327–336. https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2018-0136CrossRefPubMed

12.

Cotter EJ, Wang J, Illgen RL (2022) (2022) Comparative Cost Analysis of Robotic-Assisted and Jig-Based Manual Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Knee Surg 35(02):176–184. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1713895CrossRefPubMed

13.

Doan GW, Courtis RP, Wyss JG et al (2022) Image-free robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty improves implant alignment accuracy: a cadaveric study. J Arthroplasty 37:795–801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.12.035CrossRefPubMed

14.

EPRD Endoprothesenregister Deutschland (2021) EPRD Jahresbericht 2021. EPRD gGmbH

15.

Fang CJ, Mazzocco JC, Sun DC, Shaker JM, Talmo CT, Mattingly DA, Smith EL (2022) Total Knee Arthroplasty Hospital Costs by Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing: Robotic vs Conventional. Arthroplast Today. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2021.11.008CrossRefPubMed

16.

Figueroa F, Wakelin E, Twiggs J, Fritsch B (2019) Comparison between navigated reported position and postoperative computed tomography to evaluate accuracy in a robotic navigation system in total knee arthroplasty. Knee 26:869–875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2019.05.004CrossRefPubMed

17.

Grau L, Lingamfelter M, Ponzio D et al (2019) Robotic arm assisted total knee arthroplasty workflow optimization, operative times and learning curve. Arthroplast Today 5:465–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2019.04.007CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Grimberg A, Jansson V (2020) EPRD-Jahresbericht 2020. EPRD gGmbH

19.

Hampp EL, Sodhi N, Scholl L et al (2019) Less iatrogenic soft-tissue damage utilizing robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty when compared with a manual approach: a blinded assessment. Bone Joint Res 8:495–501. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.810.BJR-2019-0129.R1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Hayashi S, Hashimoto S, Kuroda Y et al (2021) Robotic-arm assisted THA can achieve precise cup positioning in developmental dysplasia of the hip : a case control study. Bone Joint Res 10:629–638. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.1010.BJR-2021-0095.R1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Hepinstall M, Mota F, Naylor B et al (2021) Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty in patients who have developmental hip dysplasia. Surg Technol Int 39:338–347CrossRef

22.

Honl M, Dierk O, Gauck C et al (2003) Comparison of robotic-assisted and manual implantation of a primary total HIP replacement: a prospective study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85:1470–1478. https://doi.org/10.2106/00004623-200308000-00007CrossRefPubMed

23.

Iñiguez M, Negrín R, Duboy J et al (2021) Robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: increasing surgical accuracy? A cadaveric study. J Knee Surg 34:628–634. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1698771CrossRefPubMed

24.

Jacofsky DJ, Allen M (2016) Robotics in arthroplasty: a comprehensive review. J Arthroplasty 31:2353–2363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.05.026CrossRefPubMed

25.

Kamath AF, Durbhakula SM, Pickering T et al (2021) Improved accuracy and fewer outliers with a novel CT-free robotic THA system in matched-pair analysis with manual THA. J Robotic Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-021-01315-3CrossRef

26.

Kayani B, Konan S, Huq SS et al (2019) Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty has a learning curve of seven cases for integration into the surgical workflow but no learning curve effect for accuracy of implant positioning. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27:1132–1141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-5138-5CrossRefPubMed

27.

Kayani B, Konan S, Huq SS et al (2021) The learning curve of robotic-arm assisted acetabular cup positioning during total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int 31:311–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/1120700019889334CrossRefPubMed

28.

Kayani B, Konan S, Pietrzak JRT, Haddad FS (2018) Iatrogenic bone and soft tissue trauma in robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty compared with conventional jig-based total knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study and validation of a new classification system. J Arthroplasty 33:2496–2501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.03.042CrossRefPubMed

29.

Kim K‑I, Kim D‑K, Juh H‑S et al (2016) Robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty in haemophilic arthropathy. Haemophilia 22:446–452. https://doi.org/10.1111/hae.12875CrossRefPubMed

30.

Kolodychuk N, Su E, Alexiades MM et al (2021) Can robotic technology mitigate the learning curve of total hip arthroplasty? Bone Jt Open 2:365–370. https://doi.org/10.1302/2633-1462.26.BJO-2021-0042.R1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Koulalis D, O’Loughlin PF, Plaskos C et al (2011) Sequential versus automated cutting guides in computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Knee 18:436–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2010.08.007CrossRefPubMed

32.

Kurtz SM, Lau E, Ong K et al (2009) Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: national projections from 2010 to 2030. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:2606–2612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0834-6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Liow MHL, Chin PL, Pang HN et al (2017) THINK surgical TSolution-One ^® (Robodoc) total knee arthroplasty. SICOT J 3:63. https://doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2017052CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Liow MHL, Chin PL, Tay KJD et al (2014) Early experiences with robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty using the DigiMatch^TM ROBODOC® surgical system. Singapore Med J 55:529–534. https://doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2014136CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Liow MHL, Goh GS‑H, Wong MK et al (2017) Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty may lead to improvement in quality-of-life measures: a 2-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25:2942–2951. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4076-3CrossRefPubMed

36.

MacDessi SJ, Wood JA, Diwan AD et al (2021) Surgeon-defined assessment is a poor predictor of knee balance in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, multicenter study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29:498–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-05925-6CrossRefPubMed

37.

Mahure SA, Teo GM, Kissin YD et al (2021) Learning curve for active robotic total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06452-8CrossRefPubMed

38.

Marchand KB, Ehiorobo J, Mathew KK et al (2022) Learning curve of robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty for a high-volume surgeon. J Knee Surg 35:409–415. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1715126CrossRefPubMed

39.

Moschetti WE, Konopka JF, Rubash HE, Genuario JW (2016) Can robot-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty be cost-effective? A Markov decision analysis. J Arthroplasty 31:759–765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.10.018CrossRefPubMed

40.

Nakamura N, Sugano N, Nishii T et al (2010) A comparison between robotic-assisted and manual implantation of cementless total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:1072–1081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-1158-2CrossRefPubMed

41.

Nherera LM, Verma S, Trueman P, Jennings S (2020) Early economic evaluation demonstrates that noncomputerized tomography robotic-assisted surgery is cost-effective in patients undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at high-volume orthopaedic centres. Adv Orthop 2020:3460675. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3460675CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Park SE, Lee CT (2007) Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional manual implantation of a primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 22:1054–1059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2007.05.036CrossRefPubMed

43.

Parratte S, Price AJ, Jeys LM et al (2019) Accuracy of a new robotically assisted technique for total knee arthroplasty: a cadaveric study. J Arthroplasty 34:2799–2803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.06.040CrossRefPubMed

44.

Patel K, Judd H, Harm RG et al (2022) Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty: is there a maximum level of efficiency for the operating surgeon? J Orthop 31:13–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jor.2022.02.015CrossRefPubMed

45.

Pierce J, Needham K, Adams C et al (2021) Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty: an economic analysis. J Comp Eff Res 10:1225–1234. https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2020-0255CrossRefPubMed

46.

Ponzio DY, Lonner JH (2015) Preoperative mapping in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty using computed tomography scans is associated with radiation exposure and carries high cost. J Arthroplasty 30:964–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2014.10.039CrossRefPubMed

47.

Rajan PV, Khlopas A, Klika A et al (2022) The cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted versus manual total knee arthroplasty: a Markov model-based evaluation. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 30:168–176. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-21-00309CrossRefPubMed

48.

Remily EA, Nabet A, Sax OC et al (2021) Impact of robotic assisted surgery on outcomes in total hip arthroplasty. Arthroplast Today 9:46–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2021.04.003CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

49.

Rossi SMP, Sangaletti R, Perticarini L et al (2022) High accuracy of a new robotically assisted technique for total knee arthroplasty: an in vivo study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06800-8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

50.

Savov P, Tuecking L‑R, Windhagen H et al (2021) Imageless robotic handpiece-assisted total knee arthroplasty: a learning curve analysis of surgical time and alignment accuracy. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04036-2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

51.

Savov P, Tuecking L‑R, Windhagen H et al (2021) Robotics improves alignment accuracy and reduces early revision rates for UKA in the hands of low-volume UKA surgeons. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 141:2139–2146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-04114-5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

52.

Scholes C, Sahni V, Lustig S et al (2014) Patient-specific instrumentation for total knee arthroplasty does not match the pre-operative plan as assessed by intra-operative computer-assisted navigation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22:660–665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2670-1CrossRefPubMed

53.

Schulz AP, Seide K, Queitsch C et al (2007) Results of total hip replacement using the Robodoc surgical assistant system: clinical outcome and evaluation of complications for 97 procedures: evaluation of total hip replacement using the Robodoc system. Int J Med Robotics Comput Assist Surg 3:301–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.161CrossRef

54.

Shalhoub S, Lawrence JM, Keggi JM et al (2019) Imageless, robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty combined with a robotic tensioning system can help predict and achieve accurate postoperative ligament balance. Arthroplast Today 5:334–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2019.07.003CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

55.

Siddiqi A, Horan T, Molloy RM et al (2021) A clinical review of robotic navigation in total knee arthroplasty: historical systems to modern design. EFORT Open Rev 6:252–269. https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.6.200071CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

56.

Siebert W, Mai S, Kober R, Heeckt PF (2002) Technique and first clinical results of robot-assisted total knee replacement. Knee 9:173–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0968-0160(02)00015-7CrossRefPubMed

57.

Sires JD, Craik JD, Wilson CJ (2021) Accuracy of bone resection in MAKO total knee robotic-assisted surgery. J Knee Surg 34:745–748. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1700570CrossRefPubMed

58.

Song E‑K, Seon J‑K, Park S‑J et al (2011) Simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty with robotic and conventional techniques: a prospective, randomized study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19:1069–1076. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-011-1400-9CrossRefPubMed

59.

Song E‑K, Seon J‑K, Yim J‑H et al (2013) Robotic-assisted TKA reduces postoperative alignment outliers and improves gap balance compared to conventional TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:118–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2407-3CrossRefPubMed

60.

St Mart J‑P, de Steiger RN, Cuthbert A, Donnelly W (2020) The three-year survivorship of robotically assisted versus non-robotically assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a study from the Australian orthopaedic association national joint replacement registry. Bone Joint J 102:319–328. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.102B3.BJJ-2019-0713.R1CrossRefPubMed

61.

Steffens D, Karunaratne S, McBride K, Gupta S, Horsley M, Fritsch B (2022) Implementation of robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty in the public health system: a comparative cost analysis. International Orthopaedics 46(3):481–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-021-05203-1CrossRefPubMed

62.

Sultan AA, Samuel LT, Khlopas A et al (2019) Robotic-arm assisted total knee arthroplasty more accurately restored the posterior condylar offset ratio and the Insall-Salvati index compared to the manual technique; a cohort-matched study. Surg Technol Int 34:409–413PubMed

63.

Sweet MC, Borrelli GJ, Manawar SS, Miladore N (2021) Comparison of outcomes after robotic-assisted or conventional total hip arthroplasty at a minimum 2‑year follow-up: a systematic review. JBJS Rev. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.20.00144CrossRefPubMed

64.

Thiengwittayaporn S, Uthaitas P, Senwiruch C et al (2021) Imageless robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty accurately restores the radiological alignment with a short learning curve: a randomized controlled trial. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 45:2851–2858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-021-05179-yCrossRef

65.

Thomas TL, Goh GS, Nguyen MK, Lonner JH (2022) Pin-related complications in computer navigated and robotic-assisted knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Arthroplasty. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2022.05.012CrossRefPubMed

66.

Tompkins GS, Sypher KS, Griffin TM, Duwelius PD (2021) Can a reduction in revision rates make robotic total knee arthroplasty cost neutral with manual total knee arthroplasty at ten-year follow-up? An episode cost analysis. J Arthroplasty. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.10.030CrossRefPubMed

67.

Tuecking L‑R, Savov P, Windhagen H et al (2021) Imageless robotic-assisted revision arthroplasty from UKA to TKA: surgical technique and case-control study compared with primary robotic TKA. Orthopade 50:1018–1025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-021-04182-wCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

68.

Vaidya NV, Deshpande AN, Panjwani T et al (2020) Robotic-assisted TKA leads to a better prosthesis alignment and a better joint line restoration as compared to conventional TKA: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-06353-2CrossRefPubMed

69.

Vanlommel L, Neven E, Anderson MB et al (2021) The initial learning curve for the ROSA® Knee System can be achieved in 6–11 cases for operative time and has similar 90-day complication rates with improved implant alignment compared to manual instrumentation in total knee arthroplasty. J Exp Orthop 8:119. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40634-021-00438-8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

70.

Yeroushalmi D, Feng J, Nherera L et al (2022) Early economic analysis of robotic-assisted unicondylar knee arthroplasty may be cost effective in patients with end-stage osteoarthritis. J Knee Surg 35:39–46. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1712088CrossRef

71.

Yun AG, Qutami M, Chen C‑HM, Pasko KBD (2020) Management of failed UKA to TKA: conventional versus robotic-assisted conversion technique. Knee Surg Relat Res 32:38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43019-020-00056-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Marktübersicht: Roboterassistierte Endoprothetik
Aktuelle Robotersysteme, Lernkurven und Kostenanalyse
verfasst von: Dr. Lars-René Tuecking
Prof. Dr. Max Ettinger
Prof. Dr. Henning Windhagen
Dr. Peter Savov
Publikationsdatum: 09.08.2022
Verlag: Springer Medizin
Schlagwörter: Endoprothetik
Knie-TEP
Hüft-TEP
Hüft-TEP
Knie-TEP
Erschienen in: Die Orthopädie / Ausgabe 9/2022
Print ISSN: 2731-7145
Elektronische ISSN: 2731-7153
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00132-022-04286-x

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen.
» Jetzt entdecken

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

25.04.2024 | Hypertonie | Nachrichten

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

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

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Marktübersicht: Roboterassistierte Endoprothetik

Aktuelle Robotersysteme, Lernkurven und Kostenanalyse

Zusammenfassung

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Therapiestart mit Blutdrucksenkern erhöht Frakturrisiko

Ärztliche Empathie hilft gegen Rückenschmerzen

Stereotaktische Radiatio schlägt konventionelle Bestrahlung

Vorsicht mit hohen NSAR-Dosen bei ankylosierender Spondylitis!

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Springer Medizin

Zusammenfassung

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

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 9/2022

Status and future of modern technologies in arthroplasty

Hat die Navigation in der Traumatologie noch einen Stellenwert?

Sinn und Unsinn von Patienten-Apps in der Endoprothetik

Künstliche Intelligenz in der orthopädisch-unfallchirurgischen Radiologie

Digitalisierte Aufklärung: Juristische Aspekte

Digitalisierung und Computerassistierte Chirurgie in O&U

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Therapiestart mit Blutdrucksenkern erhöht Frakturrisiko

Ärztliche Empathie hilft gegen Rückenschmerzen

Stereotaktische Radiatio schlägt konventionelle Bestrahlung

Vorsicht mit hohen NSAR-Dosen bei ankylosierender Spondylitis!

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie