Keine Weiterabe zurückgenommener Medikamente in der Arztpraxis (Anm.: M. Riemer)

Ohne Zusammenfassung     

Ausfallhonorar wegen Nichterscheinens zu einem Exklusiv-Termin

Abstrakt 1. Nimmt ein Patient einen ihm von seinem (Zahn-)Arzt einger?umten Exklusiv-Termin nicht wahr, obwohl er auf dessen Eigenschaft ausdrücklich hingewiesen wurde, so hat er dem (Zahn-)Arzt den Behandlungsausfall abzüglich eines angemessenen Eigenanteils des (Zahn-)Arztes zu ersetzen. 2. Die Ersatzpflicht tritt auch dann ein, wenn der Patient den Termin nicht in der in dem Behandlungsvertrag vorgesehenen Frist absagt. Eine hierfür seitens des (Zahn-)Arztes bestimmte Frist von zwei Tagen vor Behandlungsbeginn stellt sich für den Patienten grunds?tzlich auch nicht als unangemessene Benachteiligung i.S. des § 307 BGB dar. 3. Ein Anspruch des Arztes entf?llt auch bei nur mündlicher Vereinbarung nicht unter dem Gesichtspunkt des § 4 Abs. 5b BMV-Z, denn diese Vorschrift ist teleologisch dahin zu reduzieren, dass nur zahn?rztliche Honoraransprüche aus erfolgten Behandlungen schriftlich vereinbart werden müssen. Soweit es jedoch um einen vertraglichen Anspruch wegen einer Leistungsst?rung geht, vermag das Schriftformerfordernis des § 4 Abs. 5b BMV-Z grunds?tzlich nicht einzugreifen. (Leits?tze des Bearbeiters)     

Haftung des Zahnarztes für Fremdlabor

Abstrakt 1. Wird ein Fremdlabor vom Zahnarzt mit Reparaturarbeiten beauftragt, so ist es dann nicht Verrichtungsgehilfe des Zahnarztes, wenn es an dem für die Zurechnung erforderlichen Abhängigkeitsverhältnis zwischen Arzt und Labor fehlt.2. Fehlt es an einem Weisungsrecht des Zahnarztes gegenüber dem Labor, so ist eine Haftung für das Labor als Verrichtungsgehilfe selbst dann ausgeschlossen, wenn der Zahnarzt das Labor im eigenen Namen und auf eigene Rechnung beauftragt hat. (Leitsätze des Bearbeiters)     

Optimal management strategies for placenta accreta

Objective  To determine which interventions for managing placenta accreta were associated with reduced maternal morbidity.
Design  Retrospective cohort study.
Setting  Two tertiary care teaching hospitals in Utah.
Population  All identified cases of placenta accreta from 1996 to 2008.
Methods  Cases of placenta accreta were identified using standard ICD-9 codes for placenta accreta, placenta praevia, and caesarean hysterectomy. Medical records were then abstracted for maternal medical history, hospital course, and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Maternal and neonatal complications were compared according to antenatal suspicion of accreta, indications for delivery, preoperative preparation, attempts at placental removal before hysterectomy, and hypogastric artery ligation.
Main outcome measures  Early morbidity (prolonged maternal intensive care unit admission, large volume of blood transfusion, coagulopathy, ureteral injury, or early re-operation) and late morbidity (intra-abdominal infection, hospital re-admission, or need for delayed re-operation).
Results  Seventy-six cases of placenta accreta were identified. When accreta was suspected, scheduled caesarean hysterectomy without attempting placental removal was associated with a significantly reduced rate of early morbidity compared with cases in which placental removal was attempted (67 versus 36%, P = 0.038). Women with preoperative bilateral ureteric stents had a lower incidence of early morbidity compared with women without stents (18 versus 55%, P = 0.018). Hypogastric artery ligation did not reduce maternal morbidity.
Conclusions  Scheduled caesarean hysterectomy with preoperative ureteric stent placement and avoiding attempted placental removal are associated with reduced maternal morbidity in women with suspected placenta accreta.     

Intriguing issues of EGFR targeting in head and neck cancer

We have read the recent comprehensive review by Cruz et al.[1] regarding the targeting of receptor tyrosine kinases andtheir therapeutic perspectives in head and neck squamous cellcarcinomas (HNSCC). The major focus of this report was epidermalgrowth factor receptor (EGFR) biology and targeting. However,we feel     

Analgesia for shock wave lithotripsy

PURPOSE: We evaluated the effectiveness of and patient preference for analgesia used during shock wave lithotripsy by comparing diclofenac alone with a combination of diclofenac and patient controlled analgesia, that is alfentanil. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 64 patients were treated using a Lithotriptor S (Dornier Medical Systems, Marietta, Georgia) and randomized to receive diclofenac alone or combined with an alfentanil patient controlled analgesia pump. If treated twice, they crossed over to the alternative form of analgesia. A record was maintained of the site and size of the stone, maximum power achieved, number of shocks, amount of alfentanil used and need for additional analgesia. After treatment patients scored on a visual analog scale the maximum level of pain and satisfaction with analgesia. RESULTS: There was no difference in the mean size of the stone treated (8.6 and 7.5 mm.), energy level (71% and 71% or approximately 17 kV.) or number of shocks (3,000 and 2,900, respectively) in the groups. Only 2 patients in the diclofenac group required additional analgesia and there were no significant side effects from either treatment. The mean pain scores were not significantly different in the diclofenac and patient controlled analgesia groups (3.54 and 2.93, respectively, (p = 0.34), although those on patient controlled analgesia were more satisfied (7.72 versus 9.14, p = 0.04). Of the 38 patients who presented twice 58% preferred diclofenac alone. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that there is no significant difference in the level of pain experienced with diclofenac alone or when combined with an alfentanil patient controlled analgesia pump during shock wave lithotripsy. However, patients are more satisfied with treatment when a patient controlled analgesia pump is available.