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

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Konkret geht es um den Diabetes-Patienten mit kardiovaskulären Erkrankungen oder Risiken, die Herzinsuffizienz sowie die kardiovaskuläre Primär- und Sekundärprävention. Sind Sie hier schon auf dem neuesten Stand? Unsere Experten beleuchten, wo und warum das bisherige Procedere geändert werden soll und was in der Praxis sinnvoll ist. Holen Sie sich Ihr Update und 2 CME-Punkte beim MMW-Webinar am 24. April von 17.30 bis 19 Uhr. 
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery
Erschienen in: Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery 3/2012

01.03.2012 | Review Article

Robot-assisted prostatectomy: the new standard of care

verfasst von: Gencay Hatiboglu, Dogu Teber, Markus Hohenfellner

Erschienen in: Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery | Ausgabe 3/2012

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Introduction

Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) has first been performed in 2000 and has since then become a widespread and often performed therapy option for surgical treatment of prostate cancer. The purpose of this review was to highlight the current clinical concepts for radical prostatectomy.

Discussion and conclusions

Actual literature search was performed in PubMed database and reviewed. Different surgical techniques for RARP are presented. Oncologic and functional outcomes of RARP are discussed and compared to radical retropubic prostatectomy. In conclusion, RARP has equal oncologic and functional outcome in localized prostate cancer. RARP as a less invasive treatment option for patients with localized prostate cancer should be considered as a new standard of care by now.
Literatur
1.
Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E (2010) Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 60:277–300PubMedCrossRef
2.
Han M, Partin AW, Pound CR, Epstein JI, Walsh PC (2001) Long-term biochemical disease-free and cancer-specific survival following anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy. The 15-year Johns Hopkins experience. Urol Clin North Am 28:555–565PubMedCrossRef
3.
Stanford JL, Feng Z, Hamilton AS, Gilliland FD, Stephenson RA, Eley JW, Albertsen PC, Harlan LC, Potosky AL (2000) Urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: the prostate cancer outcomes study. JAMA 283:354–360PubMedCrossRef
4.
Sriprasad S, Feneley MR, Thompson PM (2009) History of prostate cancer treatment. Surg Oncol 18:185–191PubMedCrossRef
5.
Young HH (2002) The early diagnosis and radical cure of carcinoma of the prostate. Being a study of 40 cases and presentation of a radical operation which was carried out in four cases. 1905. J Urol 168:914–921PubMedCrossRef
6.
Walsh PC (2007) The discovery of the cavernous nerves and development of nerve sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 177:1632–1635PubMedCrossRef
7.
Walsh PC, Jewett HJ (1980) Radical surgery for prostatic cancer. Cancer 45:1906–1911PubMed
8.
Prasad SM, Gu X, Lavelle R, Lipsitz SR, Hu JC (2011) Comparative effectiveness of perineal versus retropubic and minimally invasive radical prostatectomy. J Urol 185:111–115PubMedCrossRef
9.
Steiner MS, Morton RA, Walsh PC (1991) Impact of anatomical radical prostatectomy on urinary continence. J Urol 145:512–514, discussion 514–515PubMed
10.
Walsh PC, Quinlan DM, Morton RA, Steiner MS (1990) Radical retropubic prostatectomy. Improved anastomosis and urinary continence. Urol Clin North Am 17:679–684PubMed
11.
Montorsi F, Salonia A, Suardi N, Gallina A, Zanni G, Briganti A, Deho’ F, Naspro R, Farina E, Rigatti P (2005) Improving the preservation of the urethral sphincter and neurovascular bundles during open radical retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 48:938–945PubMedCrossRef
12.
Walsh PC (2000) Radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer provides durable cancer control with excellent quality of life: a structured debate. J Urol 163:1802–1807PubMedCrossRef
13.
Schuessler W, Kavoussi L, Clayman R, Vancaille T (1992) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial case report. J Urol 147: Abstract No. 130
14.
Schuessler WW, Schulam PG, Clayman RV, Kavoussi LR (1997) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: initial short-term experience. Urology 50:854–857PubMedCrossRef
15.
Guillonneau B, Vallancien G (2000) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: the Montsouris technique. J Urol 163:1643–1649PubMedCrossRef
16.
Secin FP, Savage C, Abbou C, Taille AdL, Salomon L, Rassweiler J, Hruza M, Rozet F, Cathelineau X, Janetschek G, Nassar F, Turk I, Vanni AJ, Gill IS, Koenig P, Kaouk JH, Pineiro LM, Pansadoro V, Emiliozzi P, Bjartell A, Jiborn T, Eden C, Richards AJ, Velthoven RV, Stolzenburg JU, Rabenalt R, Su LM, Pavlovich CP, Levinson AW, Touijer KA, Vickers A, Guillonneau B (2010) The learning curve for laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: an international multicenter study. J Urol 184:2291–2296PubMedCrossRef
17.
Coelho RF, Chauhan S, Palmer KJ, Rocco B, Patel MB, Patel VR (2009) Robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a review of current outcomes. BJU Int 104:1428–1435PubMedCrossRef
18.
Binder J, Kramer W (2001) Robotically-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 87:408–410PubMedCrossRef
19.
Abbou CC, Hoznek A, Salomon L, Lobontiu A, Saint F, Cicco A, Antiphon P, Chopin D (2000) Remote laparoscopic radical prostatectomy carried out with a robot. Report of a case. Prog Urol 10:520–523PubMed
20.
Su L-M (2010) Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: advances since 2005. Curr Opin Urol 20:130–135PubMedCrossRef
21.
Ahlering TE, Skarecky D, Lee D, Clayman RV (2003) Successful transfer of open surgical skills to a laparoscopic environment using a robotic interface: initial experience with laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 170:1738–1741PubMedCrossRef
22.
Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Filen F, Ruutu M, Garmo H, Busch C, Nordling S, Haggman M, Andersson SO, Bratell S, Spangberg A, Palmgren J, Adami HO, Johansson JE (2008) Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in localized prostate cancer: the Scandinavian prostate cancer group-4 randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:1144–1154PubMedCrossRef
23.
Heidenreich A, Bellmunt J, Bolla M, Joniau S, Mason M, Matveev V, Mottet N, Schmid H-P, Tvd K, Wiegel T, Zattoni F (2011) EAU guidelines on prostate cancer. Part 1: screening, diagnosis, and treatment of clinically localised disease. Eur Urol 59:61–71PubMedCrossRef
24.
Williams SB, Prasad SM, Weinberg AC, Shelton JB, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR, Hu JC (2010) Trends in the care of radical prostatectomy in the United States from 2003 to 2006. BJU Int (in press)
25.
Tewari A, Peabody J, Sarle R, Balakrishnan G, Hemal A, Shrivastava A, Menon M (2002) Technique of da Vinci robot-assisted anatomic radical prostatectomy. Urology 60:569–572PubMedCrossRef
26.
Stolzenburg JU, Truss MC (2003) Technique of laparoscopic (endoscopic) radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 91:749–757PubMedCrossRef
27.
Kawakita M, Sato M, Oguchi N, Muguruma K, Murota T, Matsuda T (2001) Transperitoneal laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with the Montsouris technique: experience in initial 5 cases. Nippon Hinyokika Gakkai Zasshi 92:506–512PubMed
28.
Menon M, Tewari A, Peabody J, Team V (2003) Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: technique. J Urol 169:2289–2292PubMedCrossRef
29.
Raboy A, Ferzli G, Albert P (1997) Initial experience with extraperitoneal endoscopic radical retropubic prostatectomy. Urology 50:849–853PubMedCrossRef
30.
Stolzenburg JU, Do M, Pfeiffer H, Konig F, Aedtner B, Dorschner W (2002) The endoscopic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy (EERPE): technique and initial experience. World J Urol 20:48–55PubMedCrossRef
31.
Gettman MT, Hoznek A, Salomon L, Katz R, Borkowski T, Antiphon P, Lobontiu A, Abbou CC (2003) Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of the extraperitoneal approach using the da Vinci robotic system. J Urol 170:416–419PubMedCrossRef
32.
Joseph JV, Rosenbaum R, Madeb R, Erturk E, Patel HR (2006) Robotic extraperitoneal radical prostatectomy: an alternative approach. J Urol 175:945–950, discussion 951PubMedCrossRef
33.
Murphy DG, Bjartell A, Ficarra V, Graefen M, Haese A, Montironi R, Montorsi F, Moul JW, Novara G, Sauter G, Sulser T, Poel H (2010) Downsides of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: limitations and complications. Eur Urol 57:735–746PubMedCrossRef
34.
Coelho RF, Palmer KJ, Rocco B, Moniz RR, Chauhan S, Orvieto MA, Coughlin G, Patel VR (2010) Early complication rates in a single-surgeon series of 2500 robotic-assisted radical prostatectomies: report applying a standardized grading system. Eur Urol 57:945–952PubMedCrossRef
35.
Badani KK, Kaul S, Menon M (2007) Evolution of robotic radical prostatectomy: assessment after 2766 procedures. Cancer 110:1951–1958PubMedCrossRef
36.
Ficarra V, Novara G, Fracalanza S, D’Elia C, Secco S, Iafrate M, Cavalleri S, Artibani W (2009) A prospective, non-randomized trial comparing robot-assisted laparoscopic and retropubic radical prostatectomy in one European institution. BJU Int 104:534–539PubMedCrossRef
37.
Ahlering TE, Woo D, Eichel L, Lee DI, Edwards R, Skarecky DW (2004) Robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: a comparison of one surgeon’s outcomes. Urology 63:819–822PubMedCrossRef
38.
Lo KL, Ng CF, Lam CN, Hou SS, To KF, Yip SK (2010) Short-term outcome of patients with robot-assisted versus open radical prostatectomy: for localised carcinoma of prostate. Hong Kong Med J 16:31–35PubMed
39.
Ficarra V, Novara G, Artibani W, Cestari A, Galfano A, Graefen M, Guazzoni G, Guillonneau B, Menon M, Montorsi F, Patel V, Rassweiler J, Van Poppel H (2009) Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and cumulative analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 55:1037–1063PubMedCrossRef
40.
Coelho RF, Rocco B, Patel MB, Orvieto MA, Chauhan S, Ficarra V, Melegari S, Palmer KJ, Patel VR (2010) Retropubic, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a critical review of outcomes reported by high-volume centers. J Endourol 24:2003–2015PubMedCrossRef
41.
Rocco B, Matei DV, Melegari S, Ospina JC, Mazzoleni F, Errico G, Mastropasqua M, Santoro L, Detti S, de Cobelli O (2009) Robotic vs open prostatectomy in a laparoscopically naive centre: a matched-pair analysis. BJU Int 104:991–995PubMedCrossRef
42.
Fracalanza S, Ficarra V, Cavalleri S, Galfano A, Novara G, Mangano A, Plebani M, Artibani W (2008) Is robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy less invasive than retropubic radical prostatectomy? Results from a prospective, unrandomized, comparative study. BJU Int 101:1145–1149PubMedCrossRef
43.
Orvieto MA, Alsikafi NF, Shalhav AL, Laven BA, Steinberg GD, Zagaja GP, Brendler CB (2006) Impact of surgical margin status on long-term cancer control after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 98:1199–1203PubMedCrossRef
44.
Swindle P, Eastham JA, Ohori M, Kattan MW, Wheeler T, Maru N, Slawin K, Scardino PT (2005) Do margins matter? The prognostic significance of positive surgical margins in radical prostatectomy specimens. J Urol 174:903–907PubMedCrossRef
45.
Wright JL, Dalkin BL, True LD, Ellis WJ, Stanford JL, Lange PH, Lin DW (2010) Positive surgical margins at radical prostatectomy predict prostate cancer specific mortality. J Urol 183:2213–2218PubMedCrossRef
46.
Chun FK, Graefen M, Zacharias M, Haese A, Steuber T, Schlomm T, Walz J, Karakiewicz PI, Huland H (2006) Anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy-long-term recurrence-free survival rates for localized prostate cancer. World J Urol 24:273–280PubMedCrossRef
47.
Han M, Partin AW, Chan DY, Walsh PC (2004) An evaluation of the decreasing incidence of positive surgical margins in a large retropubic prostatectomy series. J Urol 171:23–26PubMedCrossRef
48.
Murphy DG, Kerger M, Crowe H, Peters JS, Costello AJ (2009) Operative details and oncological and functional outcome of robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: 400 cases with a minimum of 12 months follow-up. Eur Urol 55:1358–1366PubMedCrossRef
49.
Magheli A, Gonzalgo ML, Su L-M, Guzzo TJ, Netto G, Humphreys EB, Han M, Partin AW, Pavlovich CP (2010) Impact of surgical technique (open vs laparoscopic vs robotic-assisted) on pathological and biochemical outcomes following radical prostatectomy: an analysis using propensity score matching. BJU Int (in press)
50.
Menon M, Bhandari M, Gupta N, Lane Z, Peabody JO, Rogers CG, Sammon J, Siddiqui SA, Diaz M (2010) Biochemical recurrence following robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: analysis of 1384 patients with a median 5-year follow-up. Eur Urol (in press)
51.
Herrmann TR, Rabenalt R, Stolzenburg JU, Liatsikos EN, Imkamp F, Tezval H, Gross AJ, Jonas U, Burchardt M (2007) Oncological and functional results of open, robot-assisted and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: does surgical approach and surgical experience matter? World J Urol 25:149–160PubMedCrossRef
52.
Rocco F, Carmignani L, Acquati P, Gadda F, Dell’Orto P, Rocco B, Bozzini G, Gazzano G, Morabito A (2006) Restoration of posterior aspect of rhabdosphincter shortens continence time after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol 175:2201–2206PubMedCrossRef
53.
Patel VR, Coelho RF, Palmer KJ, Rocco B (2009) Periurethral suspension stitch during robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: description of the technique and continence outcomes. Eur Urol 56:472–478PubMedCrossRef
54.
Tewari AK, Bigelow K, Rao S, Takenaka A, El-Tabi N, Te A, Vaughan ED (2007) Anatomic restoration technique of continence mechanism and preservation of puboprostatic collar: a novel modification to achieve early urinary continence in men undergoing robotic prostatectomy. Urology 69:726–731PubMedCrossRef
55.
Mendiola FP, Zorn KC, Mikhail AA, Lin S, Orvieto MA, Zagaja GP, Shalhav AL (2008) Urinary and sexual function outcomes among different age groups after robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. J Endourol 22:519–524PubMedCrossRef
56.
Krambeck AE, DiMarco DS, Rangel LJ, Bergstralh EJ, Myers RP, Blute ML, Gettman MT (2009) Radical prostatectomy for prostatic adenocarcinoma: a matched comparison of open retropubic and robot-assisted techniques. BJU Int 103:448–453PubMedCrossRef
57.
Di Pierro GB, Baumeister P, Stucki P, Beatrice J, Danuser H, Mattei A (2010) A prospective trial comparing consecutive series of open retropubic and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy in a centre with a limited caseload. Eur Urol (in press)
58.
Wolin KY, Luly J, Sutcliffe S, Andriole GL, Kibel AS (2010) Risk of urinary incontinence following prostatectomy: the role of physical activity and obesity. J Urol 183:629–633PubMedCrossRef
59.
Teber D, Sofikerim M, Ates M, Gozen AS, Guven O, Sanli O, Rassweiler J (2010) Is type 2 diabetes mellitus a predictive factor for incontinence after laparoscopic radical prostatectomy? A matched pair and multivariate analysis. J Urol 183:1087–1091PubMedCrossRef
60.
Orvieto MA, Patel VR (2009) Evolution of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Scand J Surg 98:76–88PubMed
61.
Costello AJ, Brooks M, Cole OJ (2004) Anatomical studies of the neurovascular bundle and cavernosal nerves. BJU Int 94:1071–1076PubMedCrossRef
62.
Chauhan S, Coelho RF, Rocco B, Palmer KJ, Orvieto MA, Patel VR (2010) Techniques of nerve-sparing and potency outcomes following robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Int Braz J Urol 36:259–272PubMedCrossRef
63.
Menon M, Shrivastava A, Kaul S, Badani KK, Fumo M, Bhandari M, Peabody JO (2007) Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: contemporary technique and analysis of results. Eur Urol 51:648–657, discussion 657–648PubMedCrossRef
64.
Kaul S, Savera A, Badani K, Fumo M, Bhandari A, Menon M (2006) Functional outcomes and oncological efficacy of Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy with Veil of Aphrodite nerve-sparing: an analysis of 154 consecutive patients. BJU Int 97:467–472PubMedCrossRef
65.
Savera AT, Kaul S, Badani K, Stark AT, Shah NL, Menon M (2006) Robotic radical prostatectomy with the “Veil of Aphrodite” technique: histologic evidence of enhanced nerve sparing. Eur Urol 49:1065–1073, discussion 1073–1064PubMedCrossRef
66.
Potdevin L, Ercolani M, Jeong J, Kim IY (2009) Functional and oncologic outcomes comparing interfascial and intrafascial nerve sparing in robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomies. J Endourol 23:1479–1484PubMedCrossRef
67.
Novara G, Ficarra V, D’Elia C, Secco S, Cavalleri S, Artibani W (2011) Trifecta outcomes after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. BJU Int 107:100–104PubMedCrossRef
68.
Tewari A, Srivasatava A, Menon M (2003) A prospective comparison of radical retropubic and robot-assisted prostatectomy: experience in one institution. BJU Int 92:205–210PubMedCrossRef
69.
Patel VR, Tully AS, Holmes R, Lindsay J (2005) Robotic radical prostatectomy in the community setting—the learning curve and beyond: initial 200 cases. J Urol 174:269–272PubMedCrossRef
70.
Menon M, Tewari A, Baize B, Guillonneau B, Vallancien G (2002) Prospective comparison of radical retropubic prostatectomy and robot-assisted anatomic prostatectomy: the Vattikuti Urology Institute experience. Urology 60:864–868PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Robot-assisted prostatectomy: the new standard of care
verfasst von
Gencay Hatiboglu
Dogu Teber
Markus Hohenfellner
Publikationsdatum
01.03.2012
Verlag
Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery / Ausgabe 3/2012
Print ISSN: 1435-2443
Elektronische ISSN: 1435-2451
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-011-0743-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2012

Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery 3/2012 Zur Ausgabe

Original Article

Thyroid cancer surgery in Germany

Original Article

Enhanced postoperative lymphatic staging of malignant melanoma by endoscopically assisted iliacoinguinal dissection

Review Article

The role of lateral lymph node dissection in the management of lower rectal cancer

Controlled Clinical Trial

Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of MonoMax® suture material for abdominal wall closure after primary midline laparotomy—a controlled prospective multicentre trial: ISSAAC [NCT005725079]

Original Article

High-dose immunoglobulin preparations improve survival in a CLP-induced rat model of sepsis

Original Article

Predictors and outcome of early recurrence after resection of hepatic metastases from colorectal cancer

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.