Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy 1/2017

18.05.2016

Robotic surgery: current perceptions and the clinical evidence

verfasst von: Arif Ahmad, Zoha F. Ahmad, Jared D. Carleton, Ashish Agarwala

Erschienen in: Surgical Endoscopy | Ausgabe 1/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

It appears that a discrepancy exists between the perception of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) and the current clinical evidence regarding robotic-assisted surgery among patients, healthcare providers, and hospital administrators. The purpose of this study was to assess whether or not such a discrepancy exists.

Methods

We administered survey questionnaires via face-to-face interviews with surgical patients (n = 101), healthcare providers (n = 58), and senior members of hospital administration (n = 6) at a community hospital that performs robotic surgery. The respondents were asked about their perception regarding the infection rate, operative time, operative blood loss, incision size, cost, length of hospital stay (LOS), risk of complications, precision and accuracy, tactile sensation, and technique of robotic-assisted surgery as compared with conventional laparoscopic surgery. We then performed a comprehensive literature review to assess whether or not these perceptions could be corroborated with clinical evidence.

Results

The majority of survey respondents perceived RAS as modality to decrease infection rate, increase operative time, decrease operative blood loss, smaller incision size, a shorter LOS, and a lower risk of complications, while increasing the cost. Respondents also believed that robotic surgery provides greater precision, accuracy, and tactile sensation, while improving intra-operative access to organs. A comprehensive literature review found little-to-no clinical evidence that supported the respondent’s favorable perceptions of robotic surgery except for the increased costs, and precision and accuracy of the robotic-assisted technique.

Conclusions

There is a discrepancy between the perceptions of robotic surgery and the clinical evidence among patients, healthcare providers, and hospital administrators surveyed.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Heemskerk J, Bouvy N, Baeten C (2014) The end of robotic-assisted laparoscopy? A critical appraisal of scientific evidence on the use of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 28:1388–1398CrossRefPubMed Heemskerk J, Bouvy N, Baeten C (2014) The end of robotic-assisted laparoscopy? A critical appraisal of scientific evidence on the use of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 28:1388–1398CrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Badani KK, Bhandari A, Tewari A, Menon M (2005) Comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional suturing: is there a difference in a robotic surgery setting? J Endourol 19:1212–1215CrossRefPubMed Badani KK, Bhandari A, Tewari A, Menon M (2005) Comparison of two-dimensional and three-dimensional suturing: is there a difference in a robotic surgery setting? J Endourol 19:1212–1215CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Herron DM, Marohn M (2008) The SAGES-MIRA Robotic Surgery Consensus Group. A consensus document on robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 22:313–325CrossRefPubMed Herron DM, Marohn M (2008) The SAGES-MIRA Robotic Surgery Consensus Group. A consensus document on robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 22:313–325CrossRefPubMed
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Koughnett J, Jayaraman S, Eagleson R (2009) Are there advantages to robotic-assisted surgery over laparoscopy from the surgeon’s perspective? J Robot Surg 3:79–82CrossRefPubMed Koughnett J, Jayaraman S, Eagleson R (2009) Are there advantages to robotic-assisted surgery over laparoscopy from the surgeon’s perspective? J Robot Surg 3:79–82CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat van der Schatte Olivier RH, van’t Hullenaar CDP, Ruurda JP, Broeders IAMJ (2009) Ergonomics, user comfort, and performance in standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 23:1365–1371CrossRefPubMed van der Schatte Olivier RH, van’t Hullenaar CDP, Ruurda JP, Broeders IAMJ (2009) Ergonomics, user comfort, and performance in standard and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 23:1365–1371CrossRefPubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Bultitude M, Murphy D, Challacombe B, Elhage O, Khan MS, Wang Q, Dasgupta P (2008) Patient perception of robotic urology. Br J Urol 103:285–288CrossRef Bultitude M, Murphy D, Challacombe B, Elhage O, Khan MS, Wang Q, Dasgupta P (2008) Patient perception of robotic urology. Br J Urol 103:285–288CrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Benway BM, Bhayani SB, Rogers CG, Dulabon LM, Patel MN, Lipkin M, Wang AJ, Stifelman MD (2009) Robot assisted partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors: a multi-institutional analysis of perioperative outcomes. J Urol 182:866–873CrossRefPubMed Benway BM, Bhayani SB, Rogers CG, Dulabon LM, Patel MN, Lipkin M, Wang AJ, Stifelman MD (2009) Robot assisted partial nephrectomy versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal tumors: a multi-institutional analysis of perioperative outcomes. J Urol 182:866–873CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Hu JC, Nelson RA, Wilson TG, Kawachi MH, Ramin SA, Lau C, Crocitto LE (2006) Perioperative complications of laparoscopic and robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 75:541–546CrossRef Hu JC, Nelson RA, Wilson TG, Kawachi MH, Ramin SA, Lau C, Crocitto LE (2006) Perioperative complications of laparoscopic and robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. J Urol 75:541–546CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Ng CK, Kauffman EC, Lee MM, Otto BJ, Portnoff A, Ehrlich JR, Schwartz MJ, Wang GJ, Scherr DS (2010) A comparison of postoperative complications in open versus robotic cystectomy. Eur Urol 57:274–281CrossRefPubMed Ng CK, Kauffman EC, Lee MM, Otto BJ, Portnoff A, Ehrlich JR, Schwartz MJ, Wang GJ, Scherr DS (2010) A comparison of postoperative complications in open versus robotic cystectomy. Eur Urol 57:274–281CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Tewari A, Sooriakumaran P, Bloch DA, Seshardi-Kreaden U, Hebert AE, Wiklund P (2012) Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:1–15CrossRefPubMed Tewari A, Sooriakumaran P, Bloch DA, Seshardi-Kreaden U, Hebert AE, Wiklund P (2012) Positive surgical margin and perioperative complication rates of primary surgical treatments for prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing retropubic, laparoscopic, and robotic prostatectomy. Eur Urol 62:1–15CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Yu HY, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR, Kowalczyk KJ, Hu JC (2012) Use, costs, and comparative effectiveness of robotic assisted, laparoscopic and open urologic surgery. Eur Urol 187:1392–1398 Yu HY, Hevelone ND, Lipsitz SR, Kowalczyk KJ, Hu JC (2012) Use, costs, and comparative effectiveness of robotic assisted, laparoscopic and open urologic surgery. Eur Urol 187:1392–1398
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Packiam V, Bartlett DL, Tohme S, Reddy S, Marsh JW, Geller DA, Tsung A (2012) Minimally invasive liver resection: robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 12:2233–2238CrossRef Packiam V, Bartlett DL, Tohme S, Reddy S, Marsh JW, Geller DA, Tsung A (2012) Minimally invasive liver resection: robotic versus laparoscopic left lateral sectionectomy. J Gastrointest Surg 12:2233–2238CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Pasic RP, Rizzo JA, Fang H, Ross S, Moore M, Gunnarsson C (2010) Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gyencol 17:730–738CrossRef Pasic RP, Rizzo JA, Fang H, Ross S, Moore M, Gunnarsson C (2010) Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gyencol 17:730–738CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CC, Barber MD (2011) Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 118:1005–1013CrossRefPubMed Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CC, Barber MD (2011) Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 118:1005–1013CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Hubens G, Balliu L, Ruppert M, Gypen B, Van Tu T, Vaneerdeweg W (2008) Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedure performed with the da Vinci robot system: is it worth it? Surg Endosc 22:1690–1696CrossRefPubMed Hubens G, Balliu L, Ruppert M, Gypen B, Van Tu T, Vaneerdeweg W (2008) Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedure performed with the da Vinci robot system: is it worth it? Surg Endosc 22:1690–1696CrossRefPubMed
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Pasic RP, Rizzo JA, Fang H, Ross S, Moore M, Gunnarsson C (2010) Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gyencol 17:730–738CrossRef Pasic RP, Rizzo JA, Fang H, Ross S, Moore M, Gunnarsson C (2010) Comparing robot-assisted with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: impact on cost and clinical outcomes. J Minim Invasive Gyencol 17:730–738CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, Burke WM, Lu YS, Neugut AI, Herzog TJ, Hershman DL (2013) Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA 309:689–698CrossRefPubMed Wright JD, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, Burke WM, Lu YS, Neugut AI, Herzog TJ, Hershman DL (2013) Robotically assisted vs laparoscopic hysterectomy among women with benign gynecologic disease. JAMA 309:689–698CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Wright JD, Burke WM, Wilde ET, Lewin SN, Charles AS, Kim JH, Goldman N, Neugut AI, Herzog TJ, Hershman DL (2012) Comparative effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol 30:784–791 Wright JD, Burke WM, Wilde ET, Lewin SN, Charles AS, Kim JH, Goldman N, Neugut AI, Herzog TJ, Hershman DL (2012) Comparative effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol 30:784–791
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Orady M, Hrynewych A, Nawfal AK, Wegienka G (2012) Comparison of robotic-assisted hysterectomy to other minimally invasive approaches. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 16(4):542CrossRef Orady M, Hrynewych A, Nawfal AK, Wegienka G (2012) Comparison of robotic-assisted hysterectomy to other minimally invasive approaches. J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 16(4):542CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Khan MS, Elhage O, Challacombe B, Rimington P, Murphy D, Dasgupta P (2011) Analysis of early complications of robotic-assisted radical cystectomy using a standardized reporting system. Urology 77(2):357–362CrossRefPubMed Khan MS, Elhage O, Challacombe B, Rimington P, Murphy D, Dasgupta P (2011) Analysis of early complications of robotic-assisted radical cystectomy using a standardized reporting system. Urology 77(2):357–362CrossRefPubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Moran PS, O’Neill M, Teljeur C, Flattery M, Murphy LA, Smyth G, Ryan M (2013) Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open and laparoscopic approaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Urol 20(3):312–321CrossRefPubMed Moran PS, O’Neill M, Teljeur C, Flattery M, Murphy LA, Smyth G, Ryan M (2013) Robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open and laparoscopic approaches: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Urol 20(3):312–321CrossRefPubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Horgan S, Vanuno D (2001) Robots in Laparoscopic Surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 11:415–419CrossRef Horgan S, Vanuno D (2001) Robots in Laparoscopic Surgery. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 11:415–419CrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Masson-Lecomte A, Yates DR, Hupertan V, Haertig A, Chartier-Kastler E, Marc-Olivier B, Vaessen C, Roupret M (2013) A prospective comparison of the pathologic and surgical outcomes obtained after elective treatment of renal cell carcinoma by open or robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. Urol Oncol 31(6):924–929CrossRefPubMed Masson-Lecomte A, Yates DR, Hupertan V, Haertig A, Chartier-Kastler E, Marc-Olivier B, Vaessen C, Roupret M (2013) A prospective comparison of the pathologic and surgical outcomes obtained after elective treatment of renal cell carcinoma by open or robot-assisted partial nephrectomy. Urol Oncol 31(6):924–929CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Aboumarkzouk OM, Stein RJ, Eyraud R, Haber GP, Chlosta PL, Somani BK, Kaouk JH (2012) Robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 62:1023–1033CrossRef Aboumarkzouk OM, Stein RJ, Eyraud R, Haber GP, Chlosta PL, Somani BK, Kaouk JH (2012) Robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 62:1023–1033CrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Panumatrassamee K, Autorino R, Laydner H, Hillyer S, Khalifeh A, Kassab A, Stein RJ, Haber GP, Kaouk JH (2013) Robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for tumor in a solitary kidney: a single institution comparative analysis. Int J Urol 20:484–491CrossRefPubMed Panumatrassamee K, Autorino R, Laydner H, Hillyer S, Khalifeh A, Kassab A, Stein RJ, Haber GP, Kaouk JH (2013) Robotic versus laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for tumor in a solitary kidney: a single institution comparative analysis. Int J Urol 20:484–491CrossRefPubMed
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Barbash GI, Glied SA (2010) New technology and health care costs: the case of robotic-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363:701–704CrossRefPubMed Barbash GI, Glied SA (2010) New technology and health care costs: the case of robotic-assisted surgery. N Engl J Med 363:701–704CrossRefPubMed
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Schiavone MB, Kuo EC, Naumann RW, Burke WM, Lewin SN, Neugut AI, Hershman DL, Herzog TJ, Wright JD (2012) The commercialization of robotic surgery: unsubstantiated marketing of gynecological surgery by hospitals. Am J Obstet Gynecol 207:174.e1–174.e7CrossRef Schiavone MB, Kuo EC, Naumann RW, Burke WM, Lewin SN, Neugut AI, Hershman DL, Herzog TJ, Wright JD (2012) The commercialization of robotic surgery: unsubstantiated marketing of gynecological surgery by hospitals. Am J Obstet Gynecol 207:174.e1–174.e7CrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Nguyen PL, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, Choueiri TK, Choi WW, Lei Y, Hoffman KE, Hu JC (2011) Cost implications of the rapid adoption of newer technologies for treating prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 29:1517–1524CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Nguyen PL, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, Choueiri TK, Choi WW, Lei Y, Hoffman KE, Hu JC (2011) Cost implications of the rapid adoption of newer technologies for treating prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 29:1517–1524CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Wright JD, Burke WM, Wilde ET, Lewin SN, Charles AS, Kim JH, Goldman N, Neugut AI, Herzog TJ, Hershman DL (2012) Comparative effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol 30:784–791 Wright JD, Burke WM, Wilde ET, Lewin SN, Charles AS, Kim JH, Goldman N, Neugut AI, Herzog TJ, Hershman DL (2012) Comparative effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic hysterectomy for endometrial cancer. J Clin Oncol 30:784–791
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Weissman JS, Zinner M (2013) Comparative effectiveness research on robotic surgery. JAMA 309:721–722CrossRefPubMed Weissman JS, Zinner M (2013) Comparative effectiveness research on robotic surgery. JAMA 309:721–722CrossRefPubMed
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Brody F, Richards NG (2014) Review of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 28:1413–1424CrossRefPubMed Brody F, Richards NG (2014) Review of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 28:1413–1424CrossRefPubMed
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, von Felten S, Schar G (2012) Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 120:604–611CrossRefPubMed Sarlos D, Kots L, Stevanovic N, von Felten S, Schar G (2012) Robotic compared with conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 120:604–611CrossRefPubMed
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Corcione F, Esposito C, Curccurullo D, Settembre A, Miranda N, Amato F, Pirozzi F, Caiazzo P (2005) Advantages and limits of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery: preliminary experience. Surg Endosc 19:117–119CrossRefPubMed Corcione F, Esposito C, Curccurullo D, Settembre A, Miranda N, Amato F, Pirozzi F, Caiazzo P (2005) Advantages and limits of robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery: preliminary experience. Surg Endosc 19:117–119CrossRefPubMed
35.
Zurück zum Zitat van der Meijden OA, Schijven MP (2009) The Value of Haptic Feedback in Conventional and Robot-Assisted Minimal Invasive Surgery and Virtual Reality Training: a Current Review. Surg Endosc 23:1180–1190CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral van der Meijden OA, Schijven MP (2009) The Value of Haptic Feedback in Conventional and Robot-Assisted Minimal Invasive Surgery and Virtual Reality Training: a Current Review. Surg Endosc 23:1180–1190CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Hagen ME, Meehan JJ, Inan I, Morel P (2008) Visual cues act as a substitute for haptic feedback in robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 22:1505–1508CrossRefPubMed Hagen ME, Meehan JJ, Inan I, Morel P (2008) Visual cues act as a substitute for haptic feedback in robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 22:1505–1508CrossRefPubMed
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Jin LX, Ibrahim AM, Newman NA, Makarov DV, Pronovost PJ, Makary MA (2011) Robotic surgery claims on United States hospital websites. J Healthc Qual 33:48–52CrossRefPubMed Jin LX, Ibrahim AM, Newman NA, Makarov DV, Pronovost PJ, Makary MA (2011) Robotic surgery claims on United States hospital websites. J Healthc Qual 33:48–52CrossRefPubMed
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Schiavone MB, Kuo EC, Naumann RW, Burke WM, Lewin SN, Neugut AI, Hershman DL, Herzog TJ, Wright JD (2012) The commercialization of robotic surgery: unsubstantiated marketing of gynecological surgery by hospitals. Am J Obstet Gynecol 207:174.e1–174.e7CrossRef Schiavone MB, Kuo EC, Naumann RW, Burke WM, Lewin SN, Neugut AI, Hershman DL, Herzog TJ, Wright JD (2012) The commercialization of robotic surgery: unsubstantiated marketing of gynecological surgery by hospitals. Am J Obstet Gynecol 207:174.e1–174.e7CrossRef
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Herron DM, Lantis JC, Maykel J, Basu C, Schwaitzberg SD (1999) The 3-D monitor and head-mounted display. A quantitative evaluation of advanced laparoscopic viewing techniques. Surg Endosc 13(8):751–755CrossRefPubMed Herron DM, Lantis JC, Maykel J, Basu C, Schwaitzberg SD (1999) The 3-D monitor and head-mounted display. A quantitative evaluation of advanced laparoscopic viewing techniques. Surg Endosc 13(8):751–755CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Robotic surgery: current perceptions and the clinical evidence
verfasst von
Arif Ahmad
Zoha F. Ahmad
Jared D. Carleton
Ashish Agarwala
Publikationsdatum
18.05.2016
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Surgical Endoscopy / Ausgabe 1/2017
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4966-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2017

Surgical Endoscopy 1/2017 Zur Ausgabe

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.

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.