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 9/2015

01.09.2015 | Colorectal Cancer

Standard Versus Extralevator Abdominoperineal Low Rectal Cancer Excision Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

verfasst von: Paola De Nardi, MD, Valeria Summo, MD, Andrea Vignali, MD, Giovanni Capretti, MD

Erschienen in: Annals of Surgical Oncology | Ausgabe 9/2015

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Background

The extended, extralevator abdominoperineal excision has been described with the aim of improving oncological low rectal cancer patient outcomes.

Materials and Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted using Medline/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and Ovid for standard and extralevator abdominoperineal rectal cancer excision studies between 1995 and 2013. A total of 1,270 articles were identified and screened, and of these, 58 reports (1 randomized, 5 case–control and 52 cohort studies) were included for the qualitative analysis, and 6 were included for the quantitative analysis. The primary endpoints included intraoperative tumor perforation, the circumferential resection margin involvement, local recurrence rate, and the perineal wound complication rate. The secondary endpoints included the length of postoperative hospital stay and quality of life. Comprehensive Rev Men, version 5.2 was used for the statistical calculations.

Results

A significant difference in the circumferential resection margin involvement rate [odds ratio (OR) 2.9; p < .001], intraoperative perforation (OR 4.30; p < .001), local recurrence rate (OR 2.52; p = .02), and length of hospital stay (OR 1.06; p < .001) in favor of the extended group was observed. Additionally, the perineal wound complications were higher in the extended group (OR 0.62; p = .007). No difference in quality of life was observed.

Conclusions

Our analysis confirms the oncological advantages of the extended abdominoperineal excision method. Although the perineal wound complications were higher, the length of postoperative hospital stay was shorter, and quality of life was not inferior to the conventional resection method.
Literatur
1.
Heald RJ, Husband EM, Ryall RD. The mesorectum in rectal cancer surgery—the clue to pelvic recurrence? Br J Surg. 1982;69:613–6.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Elferink MA, van Steenbergen LN, Krijnen P, et al.; Working Group Output of the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Marked improvements in survival of patients with rectal cancer in the Netherlands following changes in therapy, 1989–2006. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46:1421–9.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Nagtegaal ID, van de Velde CJ, Marijnen CA, van Krieken JH, Quirke P; Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group; Pathology Review Committee. Low rectal cancer: a call for a change of approach in abdominoperineal resection. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:9257–64.PubMedCrossRef
4.
den Dulk M, Marijnen CA, Putter H, et al. Risk factors for adverse outcome in patients with rectal cancer treated with an abdominoperineal resection in the total mesorectal excision trial. Ann Surg. 2007;246:83–90.CrossRef
5.
den Dulk M, Putter H, Collette L, Marijnen CA, Folkesson J, Bosset JF, et al. The abdominoperineal resection itself is associated with an adverse outcome: the European experience based on a pooled analysis of five European randomised clinical trials on rectal cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:1175–83.CrossRef
6.
Krishna A, Rickard MJ, Keshava A, Dent OF, Chapuis PH. A comparison of published rates of resection margin involvement and intra-operative perforation between standard and ‘cylindrical’ abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 2013;15:57–65.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Eriksen MT, Wibe A, Syse A, Haffner J, Wiig JN; Norwegian Rectal Cancer Group; Norwegian Gastrointestinal Cancer Group. Inadvertent perforation during rectal cancer resection in Norway. Br J Surg. 2004;91:210–6.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Stelzner S, Koehler C, Stelzer J, Sims A, Witzigmann H. Extended abdominoperineal excision vs. standard abdominoperineal excision in rectal cancer—a systematic overview. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2011;26:1227–40.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Holm T, Ljung A, Haggmark T, Jurell G, Lagergren J. Extended abdominoperineal resection with gluteus maximus flap reconstruction of the pelvic floor for rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2007;94:232–8.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Miles WE. A method of performing abdominoperineal excision for carcinoma of the rectum and of the terminal portion of the pelvic colon. Lancet. 1908;2:1812–3.CrossRef
11.
Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
12.
Stelzner S, Hellmich G, Schubert C, Puffer E, Haroske G, Witzigmann H. Short term outcome of extra-levator abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2011;26:919–25.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Asplund D, Haglind E, Angenete E. Outcome of extralevator abdominoperineal excision compared with standard surgery: results from a single centre. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14:1191–6.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Han JG, Wang ZJ, Wei GH, Gao ZG, Yang Y, Zhao BC. Randomized clinical trial of conventional versus cylindrical abdominoperineal resection for locally advanced lower rectal cancer. Am J Surg. 2012;204:274–82.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Vaughan Shaw PG, Cheung T, Knight JS, Nichols PH, Pilkington SA, Mirnezami AH. A prospective case–control study of extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) of the rectum versus conventional laparoscopic and open abdominoperineal excision: comparative analysis of short-term outcomes and quality of life. Tech Coloproctol. 2012;16:355–62.PubMedCrossRef
16.
West NP, Anderin C, Smith KJE, Holm T, Quirke P; European Extralevator Abdominoperineal Excision Study Group. Multicentre experience with extralevator abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer. Br J Surg. 2010;97:588–99.PubMedCrossRef
17.
West NP, Finan PJ, Anderin C, Lindholm J, Holm T, Quirke P. Evidence of the oncologic superiority of cylindrical abdominoperineal excision for low rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3517–22.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Dalton RS, Smart NJ, Edwards TJ, Chandler I, Daniels IR. Short-term outcomes of the prone perineal approach for extra-levator abdomino-perineal excision (elAPE). Surgeon. 2012;10:342–6.PubMedCrossRef
19.
MERCURY Study group. Diagnostic accuracy of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in predicting curative resection of rectal cancer: prospective observational study. BMJ. 2006;333:779.PubMedCentralCrossRef
20.
Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, et al.; MRC CLASICC trial group. Short term endpoints of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASSIC trial): multicentre, randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;365:1718–26.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Huang A, Zhao H, Tianlong Ling T, Quan Y, Zheng M, Feng B. Oncological superiority of extralevator abdominoperineal resection over conventional abdominoperineal resection: a meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2014;29:321–7.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Yu HC, Peng H, He XS, Zhao RS. Comparison of short- and long-term outcomes after extralevator abdominoperineal excision and standard abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2014;29:183–91.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Anderin C, Martling A, Hellborg BA, Holm T. A population based study on outcome in relation to the type of resection in low rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010;53:753–60.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Tayyab M, Sharma A, Ragg J, Macdonald AW, Gunn J, Hartley JE, et al. Evaluation of the impact of implementing the prone jacknife position for the perineal phase of abdominoperineal excision of the rectum. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55:316–21.PubMedCrossRef
25.
de Campos-Lobato L, Stocchi L, Dietz DW, Lavery IC, Fazio VW, Kalady MF. Prone or lithotomy positioning during an abdominoperineal resection for rectal cancer results in comparable oncologic outcomes. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54:939–46.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Peeters KC, Marijnen CA, Nagtegaal ID, et al.; Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group. The TME trial after a median follow-up of 6 years: increased local control but no survival benefit in irradiated patients with resectable rectal carcinoma. Ann Surg. 2007;246:693–701.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Martijnse IS, Dudink RL, West NP, et al. Focus on extralevator perineal dissection in supine position for low rectal cancer has led to better quality of surgery and oncologic outcome. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:786–93.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Bullard KM, Trudel JL, Baxter NN, Rothenberger DA. Primary perineal wound closure after preoperative radiotherapy and abdominoperineal resection has a high incidence of wound failure. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48:438–43.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Chadwick MA, Vieten D, Pettitt E, Dixon AR, Roe AM. Short course preoperative radiotherapy is the single most important risk factor for perineal wound complications after abdominoperineal excision of the rectum. Colorectal Dis. 2006;8:756–61.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Nisar PJ, Scott HJ. Myocutaneous flap reconstruction of the pelvis after abdominoperineal excision. Colorectal Dis. 2009;11:806–16.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Chan S, Miller M, Ross D, Roblin P, Carapeti E, Williams AB, et al. Use of myocutaneous flaps for perineal closure following abdominoperineal excision of the rectum for adenocarcinoma. Colorectal Dis. 2010;12:555–60.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Stelzner S, Holm T, Moran B, Heald RJ, Witzigmann H, Zorenkov D, et al. Deep pelvic anatomy revisited for a description of crucial steps in extralevator abdominoperineal excision for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54:947–57.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Baker RP, White EE, Titu L, Duthie GS, Lee PW, Monson JR. Does laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection of the rectum compromise long term survival? Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;45:1481–5.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Scheidbach H, Schneider C, Konradt J, Bärlehner E, Köhler L, Wittekind CH, et al. Laparoscopic abdominoperineal resection and anterior resection with curative intent for carcinoma of the rectum. Surg Endosc. 2002;16:7–13.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Wibe A, Syse A, Andersen E, Tretli S, Myrvold HE, Søreide O; Norwegian Rectal Cancer Group. Oncological outcomes after total mesorectal excision for cure for the lower rectum: anterior vs abdomino-perineal resection. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47:48–58.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Marr R, Birbeck K, Garvican J, et al. The modern abdominoperineal excision: the next challenge after total mesorectal excision. Ann Surg. 2005;242:74–82.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
37.
Tekkis PP, Heriot AG, Smith J, Thompson MR, Finan P, Stamatakis JD; Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. Comparison of circumferential margin involvement between restorative and non restorative resections for rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 2005;7:369–74.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Ptok H, Marusch F, Kuhn R, Gastinger I, Lippert H. Influence of hospital volume on the frequency of abdominoperineal resection and long-term oncological outcomes in low rectal cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2007;33:854–61.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Strassburg J, Junginger T, Trinh T, Püttcher O, Oberholzer K, Heald RJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based indication for neoadjuvant treatment of rectal carcinoma and the surrogate CRM status. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2008;23:1099–107.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Sideris L, Zenasni F, Vernerey D, et al. Quality of life of patients operated on for low rectal cancer: impact on the type of surgery and patients’ characteristics. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48:2180–91.
41.
Chambers W, Khan A, Waters R, Lindsey I, George B, Mortensen N, et al. Examination of outcome following abdominoperineal resection for adenocarcinoma in Oxford. Colorectal Dis. 2010;12:1192–7.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Kim JS, Hur H, Kim NK, et al. Oncologic outcomes after radical surgery following preoperative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced lower rectal cancer: abdominoperineal resection versus sphincter-preserving procedure. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:1266–73.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Shihab OC, Brown G, Daniels IR, Heald RJ, Quirke P, Moran BJ. Patients with low rectal cancer treated by abdominoperineal excision have worse tumors and higher involved margin rates compared with patients treated by anterior resection. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010;53:53–6.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Smedh K, Khani MH, Kraaz W, Raab Y, Strand E. Abdominoperineal excision with partial anterior en bloc resection in multimodal management of low rectal cancer: a strategy to reduce local recurrence. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006;49:833–40.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Bebenek M. Abdominosacral amputation of the rectum for low rectal cancers: ten years of experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:2211–7.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Davies M, Harries D, Hirst G, Beynon R, Morgan AR, Carr ND, et al. Local recurrence after abdominoperineal resection. Colorectal Dis. 2009;11:39–43.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Han JG, Wang ZJ, Gao ZG, Xu HM, Yang ZH, Jin ML. Pelvic floor reconstruction using human acellular dermal matrix after cylindrical abdominoperineal resection. Dis Colon Rectum. 2010;53:219–23.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Welsch T, Mategakis V, Contin P, Kulu Y, Büchler MW, Ulrich A. Results of extralevator abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer including quality of life and long term wound complications. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2013;28:503–10.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Law WL, Chu KW. Abdominoperineal resection is associated with poor oncologic outcome. Br J Surg. 2004;91:1493–9.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Chuwa EW, Seow-Choen F. Outcomes for abdominoperineal resections are not worse than those of anterior resection. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006;49:41–9.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Ferenschild FT, Dawson I, de Wilt JH, de Graaf EJ, Groenendijk RP, Tetteroo GW. Total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer in an unselected population: quality assessment in a low volume center. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2009;24:923–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
52.
Hermanek P, Merkel S, Fietkau R, Rödel C, Hohenberger W. Regional lymph node metastasis and locoregional recurrence of rectal carcinoma in the era of TME surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2010;25:359–68.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Kneist W, Heintz A, Wolf HK, Junginger T. Total excision of the mesorectum in cancer of the lower and middle rectum. Oncological and functional results. Chirurg. 2003;74:125–31.PubMed
54.
Lee SH, Hernandez de Anda E, Finne CO, Madoff RD, Garcia-Aguilar J. The effect of circumferential tumor location in clinical outcomes of rectal cancer patients treated with total mesorectal excision. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48:2249–57.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Chiappa A, Biffi R, Bertani E, et al. Surgical outcomes after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2006;94:182–93.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Kusters M, Marijnen CA, van de Velde CJ, et al. Patterns of local recurrence in rectal cancer: a study of Dutch TME trial. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010;36:470–6.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Nissan A, Guillem JG, Paty PB, Douglas Wong W, Minsky B, Saltz L, et al. Abdominoperineal resection for low rectal cancer at a specialty center. Dis Colon Rectum. 2001;44:27–35.PubMedCrossRef
58.
Dehni N, McFadden N, McNamara DA, Guiguet M, Tiret E, Parc R. Oncologic results following abdominoperineal resection for adenocarcinoma of the low rectum. Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46:867–74.PubMedCrossRef
59.
Okaro AC, Worthington T, Stebbing JF, Broughton M, Caffarey S, Marks CG. Curative resection for low rectal adenocarcinoma: abdominoperineal vs. anterior resection. Colorectal Dis. 2006;8:645–9.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Silberfein EJ, Kattepogu KM, Hu CY, et al. Long term survival and recurrence outcomes following surgery for distal rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:2863–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
61.
Allal AS, Bieri S, Pelloni A, et al. Sphincter sparing surgery after preoperative radiotherapy for low rectal cancer: feasibility, oncologic results and quality of life outcomes. Br J Cancer. 2000;82:1131–7.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
62.
Grumann MM, Noack EM, Hoffmann IA, Schlag PM. Comparison of quality of life in patients undergoing abdominoperineal extirpation or anterior resection for rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2001;233:149–56.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
63.
Camilleri-Brennan J, Steele RJ. Objective assessment of morbidity and quality of life after surgery for low rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 2002;4:61–6.PubMedCrossRef
64.
Gosselink MP, Busschbach JJ, Dijkhuis CM, Stassen LP, Hop WC, Schouten WR. Quality of life after total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 2006;8:15–22.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Schmidt CE, Bestmann B, Küchler T, Longo WE, Kremer B. Prospective evaluation of quality of life of patients receiving either abdominoperineal resection or sphincter-preserving procedure for rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2005;12:117–23.PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Standard Versus Extralevator Abdominoperineal Low Rectal Cancer Excision Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
verfasst von
Paola De Nardi, MD
Valeria Summo, MD
Andrea Vignali, MD
Giovanni Capretti, MD
Publikationsdatum
01.09.2015
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Annals of Surgical Oncology / Ausgabe 9/2015
Print ISSN: 1068-9265
Elektronische ISSN: 1534-4681
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4368-8

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 9/2015

Annals of Surgical Oncology 9/2015 Zur Ausgabe

Urologic Oncology

FDG PET–CT for Lymph Node Staging of Bladder Cancer: A Prospective Study of Patients with Extended Pelvic Lymphadenectomy

Breast Oncology

Prospective Trial of Breast MRI Versus 2D and 3D Ultrasound for Evaluation of Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

Breast Oncology

Bilateral Risk-Reduction Mastectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 Mutation Carriers: A Meta-analysis

Head and Neck Oncology

Plate Exposure After Anterolateral Thigh Free-Flap Reconstruction in Head and Neck Cancer Patients With Composite Mandibular Defects

Bone and Soft Tissue Sarcomas

Retroperitoneal Sarcoma (RPS) High Risk Gross Tumor Volume Boost (HR GTV Boost) Contour Delineation Agreement Among NRG Sarcoma Radiation and Surgical Oncologists

Hepatobiliary Tumors

Intra-arterial Yttrium-90 Radioembolization Combined with Systemic Chemotherapy is a Promising Method for Downstaging Unresectable Huge Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma to Surgical Treatment

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
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.
Bildnachweise