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
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
Erschienen in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 6/2018

17.07.2018 | Original Article

Systematic Review of Quality-of-Life Measurement After Aesthetic Rhinoplasty

verfasst von: Matthias S. Wähmann, Olcay C. Bulut, Gregor M. Bran, Johannes A. Veit, Frank Riedel

Erschienen in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery | Ausgabe 6/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Introduction

The assessment of outcomes in aesthetic rhinoplasty is highly relevant because patient satisfaction and improved health-related quality of life (QoL) are the predominant factors in determining success. The patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) employed in rhinoplasty research studies are remarkably diverse, thus yielding difficulties with data analysis. The aim of this article is to provide a comprehensive review of the literature to reveal the relevance of the QoL assessment for rhinosurgeons.

Methods

A systematic literature search with the terms “Rhinoplasty” and “Quality of Life” was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar and Cochrane databases. Primarily, all publications related to QoL following aesthetic rhinoplasty between 2002 and 2017 were identified. As a secondary selection, we focused on articles with a prospective study design, a significant cohort size (at least 50 patients) and a follow-up period of at least 6 months after aesthetic rhinoplasty.

Results

A total of 62 PROM studies assessing QoL following aesthetic rhinoplasties were obtained. We ascertained an increasing publication rate of QoL articles over the last 15 years. Only 17 studies satisfied comprehensive inclusion criteria of a high qualitative study selection. The Rhinoplasty Outcome Evaluation was the most frequently used QoL questionnaire of the secondary selection (70.6%). The total number of 16 various questionnaires exhibit high heterogeneity.

Conclusion

Our data strengthen the increasing importance of the assessment of QoL after rhinoplasty. Despite a lack of reliable publications with considerable heterogeneity and large variability in outcomes, functional-aesthetic rhinoplasty leads to a significant improvement of patient’s health-related QoL.

Level of Evidence II

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.​springer.​com/​00266.
Literatur
1.
Ishii LE, Tollefson TT, Basura GJ et al (2017) Clinical practice guideline: improving nasal form and function after rhinoplasty. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 156:S1–S30CrossRef
2.
Strahan EJ, Wilson AE, Cressman KE, Buote VM (2006) Comparing to perfection: how cultural norms for appearance affect social comparisons and self-image. Body Image 3:211–227CrossRef
3.
Brown Z, Tiggemann M (2016) Attractive celebrity and peer images on Instagram: effect on women’s mood and body image. Body Image 19:37–43CrossRef
4.
Clancy CM, Eisenberg JM (1998) Outcomes research: measuring the end results of health care. Science 282:245–246CrossRef
5.
Lasch KE, Marquis P, Vigneux M et al (2010) PRO development: rigorous qualitative research as the crucial foundation. Qual Life Res 19:1087–1096CrossRef
6.
Cohen WA, Mundy LR, Ballard TN et al (2016) The BREAST-Q in surgical research: a review of the literature 2009–2015. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 69:149–162CrossRef
7.
Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, Jones DR (1998) Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess 2:1–74PubMed
8.
Reeve BB, Wyrwich KW, Wu AW et al (2013) ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Qual Life Res 22:1889–1905CrossRef
9.
Velikova G, Booth L, Smith AB et al (2004) Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 22:714–724CrossRef
10.
Bulut C, Wallner F, Plinkert PK, Baumann I (2014) Development and validation of the Functional Rhinoplasty Outcome Inventory 17 (FROI-17). Rhinology 52:315–319CrossRef
11.
Picavet VA, Prokopakis EP, Gabriels L, Jorissen M, Hellings PW (2011) High prevalence of body dysmorphic disorder symptoms in patients seeking rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 128:509–517CrossRef
12.
Sena Esteves S, Goncalves Ferreira M, Carvalho Almeida J, Abrunhosa J, Almeida ESC (2017) Evaluation of aesthetic and functional outcomes in rhinoplasty surgery: a prospective study. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 83:552–557CrossRef
13.
Cingi C, Songu M, Bal C (2011) Outcomes research in rhinoplasty: body image and quality of life. Am J Rhinol Allergy 25:263–267CrossRef
14.
Bulut OC, Wallner F, Hohenberger R, Plinkert PK, Baumann I (2017) Quality of life after primary septorhinoplasty in deviated- and non-deviated nose measured with ROE, FROI-17 and SF-36. Rhinology 55:75–80CrossRef
15.
Bulut OC, Wallner F, Oladokun D et al (2017) Long-term quality of life changes after primary septorhinoplasty. Qual Life Res 27:987–991CrossRef
16.
Bulut OC, Wallner F, Plinkert PK, Prochnow S, Kuhnt C, Baumann I (2015) Quality of life after septorhinoplasty measured with the Functional Rhinoplasty Outcome Inventory 17 (FROI-17). Rhinology 53:54–58CrossRef
17.
Timperley D, Stow N, Srubiski A, Harvey R, Marcells G (2010) Functional outcomes of structured nasal tip refinement. Arch Facial Plast Surg 12:298–304CrossRef
18.
Barone M, Cogliandro A, Di Stefano N, Tambone V, Persichetti P (2017) A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures after rhinoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 274:1807–1811CrossRef
19.
Picavet VA, Gabriels L, Grietens J, Jorissen M, Prokopakis EP, Hellings PW (2013) Preoperative symptoms of body dysmorphic disorder determine postoperative satisfaction and quality of life in aesthetic rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 131:861–868CrossRef
20.
Spiekermann C, Rudack C, Stenner M (2017) Reliability and validity of the German version of the Utrecht Questionnaire for Outcome Assessment in Aesthetic Rhinoplasty (D-OAR). Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 274:3893–3898CrossRef
21.
Lohuis PJ, Hakim S, Duivesteijn W, Knobbe A, Tasman AJ (2013) Benefits of a short, practical questionnaire to measure subjective perception of nasal appearance after aesthetic rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 132:913e–923eCrossRef
22.
Lohuis PJ, Datema FR (2015) Patient satisfaction in Caucasian and Mediterranean open rhinoplasty using the tongue-in-groove technique: prospective statistical analysis of change in subjective body image in relation to nasal appearance following aesthetic rhinoplasty. Laryngoscope 125:831–836CrossRef
23.
Schwitzer JA, Sher SR, Fan KL, Scott AM, Gamble L, Baker SB (2015) Assessing patient-reported satisfaction with appearance and quality of life following rhinoplasty using the FACE-Q appraisal scales. Plast Reconstr Surg 135:830e–837eCrossRef
24.
Alsarraf R (2000) Outcomes research in facial plastic surgery: a review and new directions. Aesthetic Plast Surg 24:192–197CrossRef
25.
Alsarraf R, Larrabee WF Jr, Anderson S, Murakami CS, Johnson CM Jr (2001) Measuring cosmetic facial plastic surgery outcomes: a pilot study. Arch Facial Plast Surg 3:198–201CrossRef
26.
Cingi C, Eskiizmir G, Cakli H (2012) Comparative analysis of primary and secondary rhinoplasties according to surgeon’s perspective, patient satisfaction, and quality of life. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 121:322–327CrossRef
27.
AlHarethy S, Al-Angari SS, Syouri F, Islam T, Jang YJ (2017) Assessment of satisfaction based on age and gender in functional and aesthetic rhinoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 274:2809–2812CrossRef
28.
Moubayed SP, Ioannidis JPA, Saltychev M, Most SP (2018) The 10-item Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey (SCHNOS) for functional and cosmetic rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 20:37–42CrossRef
29.
Pavri S, Zhu VZ, Steinbacher DM (2016) Postoperative Edema resolution following rhinoplasty: a three-dimensional morphometric assessment. Plast Reconstr Surg 138:973e–979eCrossRef
30.
Hellings PW, Nolst Trenite GJ (2007) Long-term patient satisfaction after revision rhinoplasty. Laryngoscope 117:985–989CrossRef
31.
Honigman RJ, Phillips KA, Castle DJ (2004) A review of psychosocial outcomes for patients seeking cosmetic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 113:1229–1237CrossRef
32.
Felix GA, de Brito MJ, Nahas FX et al (2014) Patients with mild to moderate body dysmorphic disorder may benefit from rhinoplasty. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 67:646–654CrossRef
33.
Bulut OC, Wallner F, Oladokun D, Plinkert PK, Baumann I, Hohenberger R (2018) Patients screening positive for body dysmorphic disorder show no significant health-related quality of life gain after functional septorhinoplasty at a Tertiary Referral Center. Facial Plast Surg 34:318–324CrossRef
34.
Yang F, Liu Y, Xiao H, Li Y, Cun H, Zhao Y (2017) Evaluation of preoperative and postoperative patient satisfaction and quality of life in patients undergoing rhinoplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 141:603–611CrossRef
35.
Guyuron B, Bokhari F (1996) Patient satisfaction following rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 20:153–157CrossRef
36.
Konstantinidis I, Triaridis S, Printza A, Triaridis A, Noussios G, Karagiannidis K (2003) Assessment of patient benefit from septo-rhinoplasty with the use of Glasgow Benefit Inventory (GBI) and Nasal Symptom Questionnaire (NSQ). Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg 57:123–129PubMed
37.
Draper MR, Salam MA, Kumar S (2007) Change in health status after rhinoplasty. J Otolaryngol 36:13–16CrossRef
38.
Meningaud JP, Lantieri L, Bertrand JC (2008) Rhinoplasty: an outcome research. Plast Reconstr Surg 121:251–257CrossRef
39.
Baumann I (2010) Quality of life before and after septoplasty and rhinoplasty. GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 9:Doc06PubMed
40.
Chauhan N, Warner J, Adamson PA (2010) Adolescent rhinoplasty: challenges and psychosocial and clinical outcomes. Aesthetic Plast Surg 34:510–516CrossRef
41.
Faidiga GB, Carenzi LR, Yassuda CC et al (2010) Long-term evaluation in aesthetic rhinoplasty in an academic referral center. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 76:437–441CrossRef
42.
Pecorari G, Gramaglia C, Garzaro M et al (2010) Self-esteem and personality in subjects with and without body dysmorphic disorder traits undergoing cosmetic rhinoplasty: preliminary data. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 63:493–498CrossRef
43.
Yu K, Kim A, Pearlman SJ (2010) Functional and aesthetic concerns of patients seeking revision rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 12:291–297PubMed
44.
Arima LM, Velasco LC, Tiago RS (2011) Crooked nose: outcome evaluations in rhinoplasty. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 77:510–515CrossRef
45.
de Lima Ramos S, Hochman B, Gomes HC et al (2011) Effect of nasal deviation on quality of life. Plast Reconstr Surg 128:132–136CrossRef
46.
Fatemi MJ, Rajabi F, Moosavi SJ, Soltani M (2012) Quality of life among Iranian adults before and after rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 36:448–452CrossRef
47.
Arima LM, Velasco LC, Tiago RS (2012) Influence of age on rhinoplasty outcomes evaluation: a preliminary study. Aesthetic Plast Surg 36:248–253CrossRef
48.
Lohuis PJ, Faraj-Hakim S, Knobbe A, Duivesteijn W, Bran GM (2012) Split hump technique for reduction of the overprojected nasal dorsum: a statistical analysis on subjective body image in relation to nasal appearance and nasal patency in 97 patients undergoing aesthetic rhinoplasty. Arch Facial Plast Surg 14:346–353CrossRef
49.
Saleh AM, Younes A, Friedman O (2012) Cosmetics and function: quality-of-life changes after rhinoplasty surgery. Laryngoscope 122:254–259CrossRef
50.
Sinno H, Izadpanah A, Thibaudeau S et al (2012) The impact of living with a functional and aesthetic nasal deformity after primary rhinoplasty: a utility outcomes score assessment. Ann Plast Surg 69:431–434CrossRef
51.
Cingi C, Eskiizmir G (2013) Deviated nose attenuates the degree of patient satisfaction and quality of life in rhinoplasty: a prospective controlled study. Clin Otolaryngol 38:136–141CrossRef
52.
Cingi C, Toros SZ, Cakli H, Gurbuz MK (2013) Patient-reported outcomes after endonasal rhinoplasty for the long nose. J Craniofac Surg 24:1002–1006CrossRef
53.
Lavinsky-Wolff M, Dolci JE, Camargo HL Jr et al (2013) Vertical dome division: a quality-of-life outcome study. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 148:758–763CrossRef
54.
Won TB, Park KT, Moon SJ et al (2013) The effect of septorhinoplasty on quality of life and nasal function in Asians. Ann Plast Surg 71:40–44CrossRef
55.
Baykal B, Erdim I, Kayhan FT, Oghan F (2014) Comparative analysis of nasal deformities according to patient satisfaction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 72(603):e601–e607
56.
Gunel C, Omurlu IK (2015) The effect of rhinoplasty on psychosocial distress level and quality of life. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 272:1931–1935CrossRef
57.
Izu SC, Kosugi EM, Lopes AS et al (2014) Validation of the Rhinoplasty Outcomes Evaluation (ROE) questionnaire adapted to Brazilian Portuguese. Qual Life Res 23:953–958CrossRef
58.
Mohammadshahi M, Pourreza A, Orojlo PH, Mahmoodi M, Akbari F (2014) Rhinoplasty as a medicalized phenomenon: a 25-center survey on quality of life before and after cosmetic rhinoplasty. Aesthetic Plast Surg 38:615–619CrossRef
59.
Roosenboom J, Hellings PW, Picavet VA et al (2014) Secondary cleft rhinoplasty: impact on self-esteem and quality of life. Plast Reconstr Surg 134:1285–1292CrossRef
60.
Zojaji R, Keshavarzmanesh M, Arshadi HR, Mazloum Farsi Baf M, Esmaeelzadeh S (2014) Quality of life in patients who underwent rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg 30:593–596CrossRef
61.
Biggs TC, Fraser LR, Ward MJ, Sunkaraneni VS, Harries PG, Salib RJ (2015) Patient reported outcome measures in septorhinoplasty surgery. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 97:63–65CrossRef
62.
Schwitzer JA, Albino FP, Mathis RK, Scott AM, Gamble L, Baker SB (2015) Assessing demographic differences in patient-perceived improvement in facial appearance and quality of life following rhinoplasty. Aesthet Surg J 35:784–793CrossRef
63.
Baser E, Kocagoz GD, Calim OF, Verim A, Yilmaz F, Ozturan O (2016) Assessment of patient satisfaction with evaluation methods in open technique septorhinoplasty. J Craniofac Surg 27:420–424CrossRef
64.
Bulut OC, Plinkert PK, Wallner F, Baumann I (2016) Quality of life in functional rhinoplasty: rhinoplasty outcomes evaluation German version (ROE-D). Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 273:2569–2573CrossRef
65.
Klassen AF, Cano SJ, East CA et al (2016) Development and psychometric evaluation of the FACE-Q scales for patients undergoing rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 18:27–35CrossRef
66.
Kucur C, Kuduban O, Ozturk A et al (2016) Psychological evaluation of patients seeking rhinoplasty. Eurasian J Med 48:102–106CrossRef
67.
Lee MK, Most SP (2016) A comprehensive quality-of-life instrument for aesthetic and functional rhinoplasty: the RHINO scale. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 4:e611CrossRef
68.
Yeung A, Hassouneh B, Kim DW (2016) Outcome of nasal valve obstruction after functional and aesthetic-functional rhinoplasty. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 18:128–134CrossRef
69.
70.
Bulut OC, Wallner F, Oladokun D et al (2018) Long-term quality of life changes after primary septorhinoplasty. Qual Life Res 27:987–991CrossRef
71.
de Moura BH, Migliavacca RO, Lima RK et al (2018) Partial inferior turbinectomy in rhinoseptoplasty has no effect in quality-of-life outcomes: a randomized clinical trial. Laryngoscope 128:57–63CrossRef
72.
Herruer JM, Prins JB, van Heerbeek N, Verhage-Damen G, Ingels K (2018) Does self-consciousness of appearance influence postoperative satisfaction in rhinoplasty? J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 71:79–84CrossRef
73.
Hosseinzadeh K, Hamadzadeh H, Khorasani M, Jamshidi M (2017) Health-related quality of life of persons after rhinoplasty: a longitudinal study among Iranian population. J Clin Diagn Res 11:ZC60–ZC62PubMedPubMedCentral
74.
Kotzampasakis D, Piniara A, Themelis S et al (2017) Quality of life of patients who underwent aesthetic rhinoplasty: 100 cases assessed with the Glascow Benefit Inventory. Laryngoscope 127:2017–2025CrossRef
75.
Niehaus R, Kovacs L, Machens HG, Herschbach P, Papadopulos NA (2017) Quality of life-changes after rhinoplasty. Facial Plast Surg 33:530–536CrossRef
76.
Pereira Nunes D, Tinoco C, Oliveira ECD, Paco J (2017) Intermediate osteotomies in rhinoplasty: a new perspective. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 274:2953–2958CrossRef
77.
78.
Radulesco T, Penicaud M, Santini L, Thomassin JM, Dessi P, Michel J (2018) Outcomes of septorhinoplasty: a new approach comparing functional and aesthetic results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 47:175–179CrossRef
79.
Yang F, Liu Y, Xiao H, Li Y, Cun H, Zhao Y (2018) Evaluation of preoperative and postoperative patient satisfaction and quality of life in patients undergoing rhinoplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 141:603–611CrossRef
80.
Younes A, Friedman O (2017) Cosmetics and function: quality of life after rhinoplasty. Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery 143:P149–P150CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Systematic Review of Quality-of-Life Measurement After Aesthetic Rhinoplasty
verfasst von
Matthias S. Wähmann
Olcay C. Bulut
Gregor M. Bran
Johannes A. Veit
Frank Riedel
Publikationsdatum
17.07.2018
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery / Ausgabe 6/2018
Print ISSN: 0364-216X
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-5241
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-018-1199-6

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2018

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 6/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Innovative Techniques

Treatment of Breast Animation Deformity in Implant-Based Reconstruction with Selective Nerve Ablation

Letter to the Editor

Several Opinions on Quantifying Dynamic Deformity After Dual Plane Breast Augmentation

Original Article

Degree of Acceptance of Breast Reconstruction and the Associated Factors Among a Population of Chinese Women with Breast Cancer

Original Article

Assessment of Subject and Physician Satisfaction after Long-Term Treatment of Glabellar Lines with AbobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport®/Azzalure®): Primary Results of the APPEAL Noninterventional Study

Original Article

The Use of a Retromammary Adipofascial Flap in Breast Augmentation for Patients with Thin Soft Tissue

Original Article

A Nipple–Areolar Complex Reconstruction in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using a Local Flap and Full-Thickness Skin Graft

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.