nach oben

World Journal of Surgery

Erschienen in:

01.12.2013

Learning Tools and Simulation in Robotic Surgery: State of the Art

verfasst von: Nicolas C. Buchs, François Pugin, Francesco Volonté, Philippe Morel

Erschienen in: World Journal of Surgery | Ausgabe 12/2013

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Robotic surgery has emerged as a new technology over the last decade and has brought with it new challenges, particularly in terms of teaching and training. To overcome these challenges, robotic courses, virtual simulation, and dual consoles have been successfully introduced. In fact, there are several simulators currently on the market that have proven to be a valid option for training, especially for the novice trainee. Robotic courses have also found success around the world, allowing participants to implement robotic programs at their institution, typically with the help of a proctor. More recently, the dual console has enabled two surgeons to be operating at the same time. Having one experienced surgeon and one trainee each at his or her own console has made it an obvious choice for training. Although these methods have been successfully introduced, the data remain relatively scarce concerning their role in training. The aim of this article was to review the various methods and tools involved in the training of surgeons in robotic surgery.

Buchs NC, Addeo P, Bianco FM et al (2012) Perioperative risk assessment in robotic general surgery: lessons learned from 884 cases at a single institution. Arch Surg 147:701–708PubMedCrossRef

Buchs NC, Volonte F, Pugin F et al (2011) Robotic pancreatic resection: how far can we go? Minerva Chir 66:603–614PubMed

Giulianotti PC, Addeo P, Buchs NC et al (2011) Robotic extended pancreatectomy with vascular resection for locally advanced pancreatic tumors. Pancreas 40:1264–1270PubMedCrossRef

Giulianotti PC, Coratti A, Sbrana F et al (2011) Robotic liver surgery: results for 70 resections. Surgery 149:29–39PubMedCrossRef

Buchs NC, Addeo P, Bianco FM et al (2010) Outcomes of robot-assisted pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients older than 70 years: a comparative study. World J Surg 34:2109–2114. doi:10.1007/s00268-010-0650-x PubMedCrossRef

Buchs NC, Addeo P, Bianco FM et al (2011) Robotic versus open pancreaticoduodenectomy: a comparative study at a single institution. World J Surg 35:2739–2746. doi:10.1007/s00268-011-1276-3 PubMedCrossRef

Buchs NC (2012) Training in robotic general surgery: the next challenge. Adv Robot Autom 1:e104CrossRef

Kelly DC, Margules AC, Kundavaram CR et al (2012) Face, content, and construct validation of the Da Vinci Skills Simulator. Urology 79:1068–1072PubMedCrossRef

Lallas CD, Members of the Society of Urologic Robotic Surgeons (2012) Robotic surgery training with commercially available simulation systems in 2011: a current review and practice pattern survey from the Society of Urologic Robotic Surgeons. J Endourol 26:283–293PubMedCrossRef

10.

Abboudi H, Khan MS, Aboumarzouk O et al (2012) Current status of validation for robotic surgery simulators: a systematic review. BJU Int 11:194–205

11.

Schreuder HW, Wolswijk R, Zweemer RP et al (2012) Training and learning robotic surgery, time for a more structured approach: a systematic review. BJOG 119:137–149PubMedCrossRef

12.

Da Cruz JA, Sandy NS, Passerotti CC et al (2010) Does training laparoscopic skills in a virtual reality simulator improve surgical performance? J Endourol 24:1845–1849PubMedCrossRef

13.

Fairhurst K, Strickland A, Maddern G (2011) The LapSim virtual reality simulator: promising but not yet proven. Surg Endosc 25:343–355PubMedCrossRef

14.

Seymour NE, Gallagher AG, Roman SA et al (2002) Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann Surg 236:458–463PubMedCrossRef

15.

Torkington J, Smith SG, Rees BI et al (2001) Skill transfer from virtual reality to a real laparoscopic task. Surg Endosc 15:1076–1079PubMedCrossRef

16.

Andreatta PB, Woodrum DT, Birkmeyer JD et al (2006) Laparoscopic skills are improved with LapMentor training: results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Ann Surg 243:854–860PubMedCrossRef

17.

Grantcharov TP, Kristiansen VB, Bendix J et al (2004) Randomized clinical trial of virtual reality simulation for laparoscopic skills training. Br J Surg 91:146–150PubMedCrossRef

18.

Fiedler MJ, Chen SJ, Judkins TN et al (2007) Virtual reality for robotic laparoscopic surgical training. Stud Health Technol Inform 125:127–129PubMed

19.

Finnegan KT, Meraney AM, Staff I et al (2012) da Vinci Skills Simulator construct validation study: correlation of prior robotic experience with overall score and time score simulator performance. Urology 80:330–335PubMedCrossRef

20.

Gavazzi A, Bahsoun AN, Van Haute W et al (2011) Face, content and construct validity of a virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery (SEP Robot). Ann R Coll Surg Engl 93:152–156PubMedCrossRef

21.

Guru KA, Baheti A, Kesavadas T et al (2009) In-vivo videos enhance cognitive skills for da Vinci Surgical System. J Urol 181(Suppl):823CrossRef

22.

Hung AJ, Patil MB, Zehnder P et al (2012) Concurrent and predictive validation of a novel robotic surgery simulator: a prospective, randomized study. J Urol 187:630–637PubMedCrossRef

23.

Hung AJ, Zehnder P, Patil MB et al (2011) Face, content and construct validity of a novel robotic surgery simulator. J Urol 186:1019–1024PubMedCrossRef

24.

Kenney PA, Wszolek MF, Gould JJ et al (2009) Face, content, and construct validity of dV-trainer, a novel virtual reality simulator for robotic surgery. Urology 73:1288–1292PubMedCrossRef

25.

Kesavadas T, Kumar A, Srimathveeravalli G et al (2009) Efficacy of robotic surgery simulator (RoSS) for the daVinci surgical system. J Urol 181(Suppl):823CrossRef

26.

Korets R, Graversen JA, Mues A et al (2011) Face and construct validity assessment of 2nd generation robotic surgery simulator. J Urol 185(Suppl):e488CrossRef

27.

Korets R, Mues A, Graversen J et al (2011) Comparison of robotic surgery skill acquisition between DV-trainer and da Vinci Surgical System: a randomized controlled study. J Urol 185(Suppl):e593CrossRef

28.

Lendvay TS, Casale P, Sweet R et al (2008) VR robotic surgery: randomized blinded study of the dV-Trainer robotic simulator. Stud Health Technol Inform 132:242–244PubMed

29.

Lendvay TS, Casale P, Sweet R et al (2008) Initial validation of a virtual-reality robotic simulator. J Robot Surg 2:145–149CrossRef

30.

Lerner MA, Ayalew M, Peine WJ et al (2010) Does training on a virtual reality robotic simulator improve performance on the da Vinci surgical system? J Endourol 24:467–472PubMedCrossRef

31.

Liss MA, Abdelshehid C, Quach S et al (2012) Validation, correlation, and comparison of the da Vinci trainer and the da Vinci surgical skills simulator using the mimic software for urologic robotic surgical education. J Endourol 26:1629–1634PubMedCrossRef

32.

Seixas-Mikelus SA, Kesavadas T, Srimathveeravalli G et al (2010) Face validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator. Urology 76:357–360PubMedCrossRef

33.

Seixas-Mikelus SA, Stegemann AP, Kesavadas T et al (2011) Content validation of a novel robotic surgical simulator. BJU Int 107:1130–1135PubMedCrossRef

34.

Sethi AS, Peine WJ, Mohammadi Y et al (2009) Validation of a novel virtual reality robotic simulator. J Endourol 23:503–508PubMedCrossRef

35.

Perrenot C, Perez M, Tran N, Jehl JP et al (2012) The virtual reality simulator dV-Trainer® is a valid assessment tool for robotic surgical skills. Surg Endosc 26:2587–2593PubMedCrossRef

36.

Wass V, Van der Vleuten C, Shatzer J et al (2001) Assessment of clinical competence. Lancet 357:945–949PubMedCrossRef

37.

Ahmed K, Miskovic D, Darzi A et al (2011) Observational tools for assessment of procedural skills: a systematic review. Am J Surg 202:469–480PubMedCrossRef

38.

Ahmed K, Ashrafian H, Hanna GB et al (2009) Assessment of specialists in cardiovascular practice. Nat Rev Cardiol 6:659–667PubMedCrossRef

39.

Lee JY, Mucksavage P, Kerbl DC et al (2012) Validation study of a virtual reality robotic simulator—role as an assessment tool? J Urol 187:998–1002PubMedCrossRef

40.

Korets R, Mues AC, Graversen JA et al (2011) Validating the use of the Mimic dV-trainer for robotic surgery skill acquisition among urology residents. Urology 78:1326–1330PubMedCrossRef

41.

Katsavelis D, Siu KC, Brown-Clerk B et al (2009) Validated robotic laparoscopic surgical training in a virtual-reality environment. Surg Endosc 23:66–73PubMedCrossRef

42.

Kesavadas T, Stegemann A, Sathyaseelan G et al (2011) Validation of Robotic Surgery Simulator (RoSS). Stud Health Technol Inform 163:274–276PubMed

43.

Albani JM, Lee DI (2007) Virtual reality-assisted robotic surgery simulation. J Endourol 21:285–287PubMedCrossRef

44.

Van der Meijden OA, Broeders IA, Schijven MP (2010) The SEP “robot”: a valid virtual reality robotic simulator for the da Vinci surgical system? Surg Technol Int 19:51–58PubMed

45.

Balasundaram I, Aggarwal R, Darzi A (2008) Short-phase training on a virtual reality simulator improves technical performance in tele-robotic surgery. Int J Med Robot 4:139–145PubMedCrossRef

46.

Lin DW, Romanelli JR, Kuhn JN et al (2009) Computer-based laparoscopic and robotic surgical simulators: performance characteristics and perceptions of new users. Surg Endosc 23:209–214PubMedCrossRef

47.

Hanly EJ, Miller BE, Kumar R et al (2006) Mentoring console improves collaboration and teaching in surgical robotics. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 16:445–451PubMedCrossRef

48.

Marengo F, Larrain D, Babilonti L et al (2012) Learning experience using the double-console da Vinci surgical system in gynecology: a prospective cohort study in a university hospital. Arch Gynecol Obstet 285:441–445PubMedCrossRef

49.

Smith AL, Krivak TC, Scott EM et al (2012) Dual-console robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic surgery with respect to surgical outcomes in a gynecologic oncology fellowship program. Gynecol Oncol 126:432–436PubMedCrossRef

50.

Patel HR, Linares A, Joseph JV (2009) Robotic and laparoscopic surgery: cost and training. Surg Oncol 18:242–246PubMedCrossRef

51.

Corica FA, Boker JR, Chou DS et al (2006) Short-term impact of a laparoscopic “mini-residency” experience on postgraduate urologists’ practice patterns. J Am Coll Surg 203:692–698PubMedCrossRef

52.

Sim HG, Yip SK, Lau WK et al (2006) Team-based approach reduces learning curve in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Int J Urol 13:560–564PubMedCrossRef

53.

Hanly EJ, Marohn MR, Bachman SL et al (2004) Multiservice laparoscopic surgical training using the daVinci surgical system. Am J Surg 187:309–315PubMedCrossRef

54.

Hernandez JD, Bann SD, Munz Y et al (2004) Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the learning curve of a simulated surgical task on the da Vinci system. Surg Endosc 18:372–378PubMedCrossRef

55.

Ro CY, Toumpoulis IK, Ashton RC et al (2005) A novel drill set for the enhancement and assessment of robotic surgical performance. Stud Health Technol Inform 111:418–421PubMed

56.

Narazaki K, Oleynikov D, Stergiou N (2006) Robotic surgery training and performance: identifying objective variables for quantifying the extent of proficiency. Surg Endosc 20:96–103PubMedCrossRef

57.

Mehrabi A, Yetimoglu CL, Nickkholgh A et al (2006) Development and evaluation of a training module for the clinical introduction of the da Vinci robotic system in visceral and vascular surgery. Surg Endosc 20:1376–1382PubMedCrossRef

58.

Vlaovic PD, Sargent ER, Boker JR et al (2008) Immediate impact of an intensive one-week laparoscopy training program on laparoscopic skills among postgraduate urologists. JSLS 12:1–8PubMed

59.

Marecik SJ, Prasad LM, Park JJ et al (2008) A lifelike patient simulator for teaching robotic colorectal surgery: how to acquire skills for robotic rectal dissection. Surg Endosc 22:1876–1881PubMedCrossRef

60.

Moles JJ, Connelly PE, Sarti EE et al (2009) Establishing a training program for residents in robotic surgery. Laryngoscope 119:1927–1931PubMedCrossRef

61.

Chandra V, Nehra D, Parent R et al (2010) A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic assisted suturing performance by experts and novices. Surgery 147:830–839PubMedCrossRef

62.

Di Lorenzo N, Coscarella G, Faraci L et al (2005) Robotic systems and surgical education. JSLS 9:3–12PubMed

63.

Arain NA, Dulan G, Hogg DC et al (2012) Comprehensive proficiency-based inanimate training for robotic surgery: reliability, feasibility, and educational benefit. Surg Endosc 26:2740–2745PubMedCrossRef

64.

Hoekstra AV, Morgan JM, Lurain JR et al (2009) Robotic surgery in gynecologic oncology: impact on fellowship training. Gynecol Oncol 114:168–172PubMedCrossRef

65.

Lee PS, Bland A, Valea FA et al (2009) Robotic-assisted laparoscopic gynecologic procedures in a fellowship training program. JSLS 13:467–472PubMedCrossRef

66.

Mirheydar H, Jones M, Koeneman KS et al (2009) Robotic surgical education: a collaborative approach to training postgraduate urologists and endourology fellows. JSLS 13:287–292PubMed

67.

Davis JW, Kamat A, Munsell M et al (2010) Initial experience of teaching robot-assisted radical prostatectomy to surgeons-in-training: can training be evaluated and standardized? BJU Int 105:1148–1154PubMedCrossRef

68.

Schachner T, Bonaros N, Wiedemann D et al (2009) Training surgeons to perform robotically assisted totally endoscopic coronary surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 88:523–527PubMedCrossRef

69.

Dulan G, Rege RV, Hogg DC et al (2012) Developing a comprehensive, proficiency-based training program for robotic surgery. Surgery 152:477–488PubMedCrossRef

70.

Badani KK, Hemal AK, Peabody JO et al (2006) Robotic radical prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute training experience. World J Urol 24:148–151PubMedCrossRef

71.

Rashid HH, Leung YY, Rashid MJ et al (2006) Robotic surgical education: a systematic approach to training urology residents to perform robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Urology 68:75–79PubMedCrossRef

72.

Schroeck FR, de Sousa CA, Kalman RA et al (2008) Trainees do not negatively impact the institutional learning curve for robotic prostatectomy as characterized by operative time, estimated blood loss, and positive surgical margin rate. Urology 71:597–601PubMedCrossRef

73.

Thiel DD, Francis P, Heckman MG et al (2008) Prospective evaluation of factors affecting operating time in a residency/fellowship training program incorporating robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Endourol 22:1331–1338PubMedCrossRef

74.

Link BA, Nelson R, Josephson DY et al (2009) Training of urologic oncology fellows does not adversely impact outcomes of robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Endourol 23:301–305PubMedCrossRef

75.

Buchs NC, Pugin F, Bucher P et al (2012) Learning curve for robot-assisted Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Surg Endosc 26:1116–1121PubMedCrossRef

76.

Buchs NC, Pugin F, Volonte F, et al (2013) Impact of robotic general surgery course on participants’ surgical practice. Surg Endosc Jan 5. [Epub ahead of print]

77.

Lucas SM, Gilley DA, Joshi SS et al (2011) Robotics training program: evaluation of the satisfaction and the factors that influence success of skills training in a resident robotics curriculum. J Endourol 25:1669–1674PubMedCrossRef

78.

Altunrende F, Autorino R, Haber GP, et al (2011) Immediate impact of a robotic kidney surgery course on attendees practice patterns. Int J Med Robot Feb 25. doi: 10.1002/rcs.384

79.

Gamboa AJ, Santos RT, Sargent ER et al (2009) Long-term impact of a robot assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy mini fellowship training program on postgraduate urological practice patterns. J Urol 181:778–782PubMedCrossRef

80.

Zorn KC, Gautam G, Shalhav AL et al (2009) Training, credentialing, proctoring and medicolegal risks of robotic urological surgery: recommendations of the Society of Urologic Robotic Surgeons. J Urol 182:1126–1132PubMedCrossRef

81.

Halvorsen FH, Elle OJ, Dalinin VV et al (2006) Virtual reality simulator training equals mechanical robotic training in improving robot-assisted basic suturing skills. Surg Endosc 20:1565–1569PubMedCrossRef

82.

Steinberg PL, Merguerian PA, Bihrle W et al (2008) The cost of learning robotic-assisted prostatectomy. Urology 72:1068–1072PubMedCrossRef

83.

Sarle R, Tewari A, Shrivastava A et al (2004) Surgical robotics and laparoscopic training drills. J Endourol 18:63–66PubMedCrossRef

84.

Shane MD, Pettitt BJ, Morgenthal CB et al (2008) Should surgical novices trade their retractors for joysticks? Videogame experience decreases the time needed to acquire surgical skills. Surg Endosc 22:1294–1297PubMedCrossRef

85.

Harper JD, Kaiser S, Ebrahimi K et al (2007) Prior video game exposure does not enhance robotic surgical performance. J Endourol 21:1207–1210PubMedCrossRef

86.

Hagen ME, Wagner OJ, Inan I et al (2009) Impact of IQ, computer-gaming skills, general dexterity, and laparoscopic experience on performance with the da Vinci surgical system. Int J Med Robot 5:327–331PubMedCrossRef

87.

Lynch J, Aughwane P, Hammond TM (2010) Video games and surgical ability: a literature review. J Surg Educ 67:184–189PubMedCrossRef

88.

Dulan G, Rege RV, Hogg DC et al (2012) Content and face validity of a comprehensive robotic skills training program for general surgery, urology, and gynecology. Am J Surg 203:535–539PubMedCrossRef

89.

Stefanidis D, Hope WW, Scott DJ (2011) Robotic suturing on the FLS model possesses construct validity, is less physically demanding, and is favored by more surgeons compared with laparoscopy. Surg Endosc 25:2141–2146PubMedCrossRef

90.

Judkins TN, Oleynikov D, Stergiou N (2009) Objective evaluation of expert and novice performance during robotic surgical training tasks. Surg Endosc 23:590–597PubMedCrossRef

91.

Dulan G, Rege RV, Hogg DC et al (2012) Proficiency-based training for robotic surgery: construct validity, workload, and expert levels for nine inanimate exercises. Surg Endosc 26:1516–1521PubMedCrossRef

92.

Derossis AM, Fried GM, Abrahamowicz M et al (1998) Development of a model for training and evaluation of laparoscopic skills. Am J Surg 175:482–487PubMedCrossRef

93.

Xeroulis G, Dubrowski A, Leslie K (2009) Simulation in laparoscopic surgery: a concurrent validity study for FLS. Surg Endosc 23:161–165PubMedCrossRef

94.

Lee JY, Mucksavage P, Sundaram CP et al (2011) Best practices for robotic surgery training and credentialing. J Urol 185:1191–1197PubMedCrossRef

95.

Do AT, Cabbad MF, Kerr A et al (2006) A warm-up laparoscopic exercise improves the subsequent laparoscopic performance of Ob-Gyn residents: a low-cost laparoscopic trainer. JSLS 10:297–301PubMed

96.

Kahol K, Satava RM, Ferrara J et al (2009) Effect of short-term pretrial practice on surgical proficiency in simulated environments: a randomized trial of the “preoperative warm-up” effect. J Am Coll Surg 208:255–268PubMedCrossRef

97.

Calatayud D, Arora S, Aggarwal R et al (2010) Warm-up in a virtual reality environment improves performance in the operating room. Ann Surg 251:1181–1185PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Learning Tools and Simulation in Robotic Surgery: State of the Art
verfasst von: Nicolas C. Buchs
François Pugin
Francesco Volonté
Philippe Morel
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2013
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: World Journal of Surgery / Ausgabe 12/2013
Print ISSN: 0364-2313
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2323
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-013-2065-y

Neu im Fachgebiet Chirurgie

Wie erfolgreich ist eine Re-Ablation nach Rezidiv?

23.04.2024 Ablationstherapie Nachrichten

Nach der Katheterablation von Vorhofflimmern kommt es bei etwa einem Drittel der Patienten zu Rezidiven, meist binnen eines Jahres. Wie sich spätere Rückfälle auf die Erfolgschancen einer erneuten Ablation auswirken, haben Schweizer Kardiologen erforscht.

Hinter dieser Appendizitis steckte ein Erreger

23.04.2024 Appendizitis Nachrichten

Schmerzen im Unterbauch, aber sonst nicht viel, was auf eine Appendizitis hindeutete: Ein junger Mann hatte Glück, dass trotzdem eine Laparoskopie mit Appendektomie durchgeführt und der Wurmfortsatz histologisch untersucht wurde.

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

23.04.2024 Operationsvorbereitung Nachrichten

Derzeit wird empfohlen, eine Therapie mit GLP-1-Rezeptoragonisten präoperativ zu unterbrechen. Eine neue Studie nährt jedoch Zweifel an der Notwendigkeit der Maßnahme.

Ureterstriktur: Innovative OP-Technik bewährt sich

19.04.2024 EAU 2024 Kongressbericht

Die Ureterstriktur ist eine relativ seltene Komplikation, trotzdem bedarf sie einer differenzierten Versorgung. In komplexen Fällen wird dies durch die roboterassistierte OP-Technik gewährleistet. Erste Resultate ermutigen.

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

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

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 12/2013

State of the Art in Robotic Hepatobiliary Surgery

York Mason Procedure to Repair Iatrogenic Rectourinary Fistula: Our Experience

Robot-assisted Gastrectomy for Gastric Cancer: Current Status and Technical Considerations

Prognostic Implications of Radioiodine Avidity and Serum Thyroglobulin in Differentiated Thyroid Carcinoma with Distant Metastasis

Preoperative Cardiac Evaluation by Dipyridamole Thallium-201 Myocardial Perfusion Scan Provides no Benefit in Patients with Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Long-Term Survival and Quality of Life After Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Update Chirurgie