Zusammenfassung
Hintergrund
Seit der Veröffentlichung 1993 haben sich Datensatz und Dokumentationsbogen des TraumaRegister DGU® (TR-DGU) stetig weiterentwickelt. Anlässlich des 25-jährigen Jubiläums wurde diese Entwicklung untersucht und im Spiegel des medizinischen Fortschritts in der Schwerverletztenversorgung reflektiert.
Material und Methoden
Fünf Referenzdokumentationsbogen für die Jahre 1993, 1996, 2002, 2009 und 2016 wurden in die Untersuchung eingeschlossen. Alle darin abgefragten Informationseinheiten (Items) wurden in der Studiendatenbank erfasst, thematisch kategorisiert und zur weiteren Analyse ausgezählt.
Ergebnis
Die 4‑seitige Gliederung des Bogens ist seit 1993 praktisch unverändert und umfasst im Mittel 212 Items. Insgesamt wurden 491 Items identifiziert, von denen sich 64 durchgehend im Datensatz wiederfanden. Bezogen auf den mittleren Umfang der Bogen entspricht das ca. 30 %. Der Datensatz ist tatsächlich viel konsistenter, als diese Zahl vermuten lässt, weil viele Änderungen auf ein geschickteres Bogendesign zurückgeführt werden können. Die meisten Items entfallen auf die Kategorien „Befund/Diagnose“ (143 Items, 29,1 %), Gerinnung (104, 21,2 %) und „operatives Vorgehen“ (40, 8,1 %). Viele Items dienen als Rohdaten zur Berechnung von Risikoprognose-Scores z. B. Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS), Revised Injury Severity Classification II (RISCII) oder Trauma Associated Severe Hemorrhage (TASH). Derzeit können aus dem Datensatz 9 Scores berechnet werden.
Schlussfolgerung
Die Mitglieder des Arbeitskreises TraumaRegister sind alle aktiv in der Schwerverletztenversorgung tätig. Seit 25 Jahren gelingt es ihnen, aktuelle medizinische Entwicklungen und etablierte wichtige Parameter bei relativ konstantem Dokumentationsaufwand im Datensatz des TR-DGU zu vereinigen. Praxis statt Theorie ist die treibende Kraft hinter dieser Entwicklung, die der Qualitätssicherung und Erforschung der Schwerverletztenversorgung dient.
Abstract
Background
Since the publication in 1993, the dataset and documentation form of the TraumaRegister DGU® (TR-DGU) have continuously evolved. On the occasion of the 25th anniversary the authors have analyzed this evolution in order to reflect it in the light of medical progress in the treatment of the severely injured.
Material and methods
Enrolled in the study were 5 reference data entry sheets from the years 1993, 1996, 2002, 2009 and 2016. Every piece of information (item) queried therein was entered into the study database, was categorized by topic and counted for further analysis.
Results
The arrangement of the 4‑page data entry form has remained practically unchanged since 1993 and includes an average of 212 items. A total of 491 items were identified of which 64 were present throughout every dataset. Based on the average extent of the form this equals a proportion of approximately 30%. The dataset actually shows much more consistency than this number suggests because many changes can be traced back to a smarter design of the data entry form. Most items fell into the categories “results/diagnosis” (143 items/29.1%), “coagulation” (104/21.2%) and “surgical approach” (40/8.1%). Many items serve as raw data for the calculation of prognostic risk scores, such as the trauma and injury severity score (TRISS), the revised injury severity classification II (RISC II) and the trauma associated severe hemorrhage (TASH) score. Currently, nine scores can be calculated from the dataset.
Conclusion
The members of the working group TraumaRegister all actively participate in the treatment of severely injured patients. For 25 years this group has managed to unify the latest medical developments and well-established parameters within the TR-DGU dataset at a relatively constant degree of effort for documentation. Practice in place of theory is the driving force behind this development that serves quality assurance and research in the treatment of severely injured patients.
Literatur
Bardenheuer M (1994) Das Traumaregister der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie. Unfallchirurg 97:230–237
Bouillon B, Hoffmann R, Siebert H, Sturm J (2014) Preface. German Trauma Registry. Injury 45(Suppl 3):S4–5
Nast-Kolb D, Ruchholtz S, Oestern HJ, Neugebauer E (2000) Das Traumaregister der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Polytrauma der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie. Notfall- und. Rettungsmedizin, Bd. 3
Anonymous (2014) 20 years TraumaRegister DGU®: development, aims and structure. Injury 45(Suppl 3):S6–s13
Champion HR, Copes WS, Sacco WJ, Lawnick MM, Keast SL, Bain LW Jr., Flanagan ME, Frey CF (1990) The Major Trauma Outcome Study: establishing national norms for trauma care. J Trauma 30:1356–1365
Lefering R (2009) Development and validation of the revised injury severity classification score for severely injured patients. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 35:437–447
Lefering R, Huber-Wagner S, Nienaber U, Maegele M, Bouillon B (2014) Update of the trauma risk adjustment model of the TraumaRegister DGU®: the Revised Injury Severity Classification, version II. Crit Care (Lond) 18:476
Teasdale G, Jennett B (1974) Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. A practical scale. Lancet 2(7872):81–84
Teasdale G, Maas A, Lecky F, Manley G, Stocchetti N, Murray G (2014) The Glasgow Coma Scale at 40 years: standing the test of time. Lancet Neurol 13(8):844–854. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70120-6. (Review. Erratum in: Lancet Neurol 13(9):863)
Angorn IB, Kalideen JM, Engelbrecht HE, Baker LW (1983) Segmental artery occlusion for sequential renal injuries. A case report. S Afr Med J 64(25):995–996
Champion HR, Sacco WJ, Copes WS, Gann DS, Gennarelli TA, Flanagan ME (1989) A revision of the Trauma Score. J Trauma 29(5):623–629
Champion HR, Copes WS, Sacco WJ, Lawnick MM, Keast SL, Bain LW Jr, Flanagan ME, Frey CF (1990) The Major Trauma Outcome Study: establishing national norms for trauma care. J Trauma 30(11):1356–1365
Schluter PJ, Nathens A, Neal ML, Goble S, Cameron CM, Davey TM, McClure RJ (2010) Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) coefficients 2009 revision. J Trauma 68(4):761–770. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e3181d3223b
Osler T, Baker SP, Long W (1997) A modification of the injury severity score that both improves accuracy and simplifies scoring. J Trauma 43(6):922–925
Yücel N, Lefering R, Maegele M, Vorweg M, Tjardes T, Ruchholtz S et al, Polytrauma Study Group of the German Trauma Society (2006) Trauma Associated Severe Hemorrhage (TASH)-Score: probability of mass transfusion as surrogate for life threatening hemorrhage after multiple trauma. J Trauma 60(6):1228–1236
Maegele M, Lefering R, Wafaisade A, Theodorou P, Wutzler S, Fischer P et al, Trauma Registry of Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie (TR-DGU) (2011) Revalidation and update of the TASH-Score: A scoring system to predict the probability for massive transfusion as a surrogate for life-threatening haemorrhage after severe injury. Vox Sang 100(2):231–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1423-0410.2010.01387.x
Lefering R (2009) Development and validation of the revised injury severity classification score for severely injured patients. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 35:437–447
Lefering R, Huber-Wagner S, Nienaber U, Maegele M, Bouillon B (2014) Update of the trauma risk adjustment model of the TraumaRegister DGU™: the Revised Injury Severity Classification, version II. Crit Care 18(5):476. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-014-0476-2
Hoffmann M, Lehmann W, Rueger JM, Lefering R, Trauma Registry of the German Society for Trauma Surgery (2012) Introduction of a novel trauma score. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 73(6):1607–1613. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e318270d572
Anonymous (2018) Level 3 guideline on the treatment of patients with severe/multiple injuries: AWMF Register-Nr. 012/019. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 44:3–271
Fröhlich M, Mutschler M, Caspers M, Nienaber U, Jäcker V, Driessen A, Bouillon B, Maegele M, TraumaRegister DGU (2017) Trauma-induced coagulopathy upon emergency room arrival: Still a significant problem despite increased awareness and management? Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-017-0884-5
Borgman MA, Spinella PC, Perkins JG, Grathwohl KW, Repine T, Beekley AC, Sebesta J, Jenkins D, Wade CE, Holcomb JB (2007) The ratio of blood products transfused affects mortality in patients receiving massive transfusions at a combat support hospital. J Trauma 63:805–813
Holcomb JB, Tilley BC, Baraniuk S, Fox EE, Wade CE, Podbielski JM, del Junco DJ, Brasel KJ, Bulger EM, Callcut RA, Cohen MJ, Cotton BA, Fabian TC, Inaba K, Kerby JD, Muskat P, O’Keeffe T, Rizoli S, Robinson BR, Scalea TM, Schreiber MA, Stein DM, Weinberg JA, Callum JL, Hess JR, Matijevic N, Miller CN, Pittet JF, Hoyt DB, Pearson GD, Leroux B, van Belle G (2015) Transfusion of plasma, platelets, and red blood cells in a 1:1:1 vs a 1:1:2 ratio and mortality in patients with severe trauma: the PROPPR randomized clinical trial. JAMA 313:471–482
Briggs A, Askari R (2016) Damage control resuscitation. Int J Surg 33:218–221
Schoeneberg C, Schilling M, Hussmann B, Schmitz D, Lendemans S, Ruchholtz S (2017) Preventable and potentially preventable deaths in severely injured patients: a retrospective analysis including patterns of errors. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 43:481–489
Fries D, Martini WZ (2010) Role of fibrinogen in trauma-induced coagulopathy. Br J Anaesth 105:116–121
Rourke C, Curry N, Khan S, Taylor R, Raza I, Davenport R, Stanworth S, Brohi K (2012) Fibrinogen levels during trauma hemorrhage, response to replacement therapy, and association with patient outcomes. J Thromb Haemost 10:1342–1351
Ausset S, Glassberg E, Nadler R, Sunde G, Cap AP, Hoffmann C, Plang S, Sailliol A (2015) Tranexamic acid as part of remote damage-control resuscitation in the prehospital setting: A critical appraisal of the medical literature and available alternatives. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 78:S70–75
Roberts I, Shakur H, Afolabi A, Brohi K, Coats T, Dewan Y, Gando S, Guyatt G, Hunt BJ, Morales C, Perel P, Prieto-Merino D, Woolley T (2011) The importance of early treatment with tranexamic acid in bleeding trauma patients: an exploratory analysis of the CRASH-2 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 377:1096–1101
Hauser CJ, Boffard K, Dutton R, Bernard GR, Croce MA, Holcomb JB, Leppaniemi A, Parr M, Vincent JL, Tortella BJ, Dimsits J, Bouillon B (2010) Results of the CONTROL trial: efficacy and safety of recombinant activated Factor VII in the management of refractory traumatic hemorrhage. J Trauma 69:489–500
Rossaint R, Bouillon B, Cerny V, Coats TJ, Duranteau J, Fernandez-Mondejar E, Filipescu D, Hunt BJ, Komadina R, Nardi G, Neugebauer EA, Ozier Y, Riddez L, Schultz A, Vincent JL, Spahn DR (2016) The European guideline on management of major bleeding and coagulopathy following trauma: fourth edition. Crit Care (Lond) 20:100
Chakraverty S, Zealley I, Kessel D (2014) Damage control radiology in the severely injured patient: what the anaesthetist needs to know. Br J Anaesth 113:250–257
Davis JW, Hoyt DB, Mackersie RC, McArdle MS (1990) Complications in evaluating abdominal trauma: diagnostic peritoneal lavage versus computerized axial tomography. J Trauma 30:1506–1509
Wallis A, Kelly MD, Jones L (2010) Angiography and embolisation for solid abdominal organ injury in adults—a current perspective. World J Emerg Surg 5:18
Huber-Wagner S, Lefering R, Qvick LM, Korner M, Kay MV, Pfeifer KJ, Reiser M, Mutschler W, Kanz KG (2009) Effect of whole-body CT during trauma resuscitation on survival: a retrospective, multicentre study. Lancet 373:1455–1461
Huber-Wagner S, Biberthaler P, Haberle S, Wierer M, Dobritz M, Rummeny E, van Griensven M, Kanz KG, Lefering R (2013) Whole-body CT in haemodynamically unstable severely injured patients—a retrospective, multicentre study. PLoS ONE 8:e68880
Caputo ND, Stahmer C, Lim G, Shah K (2014) Whole-body computed tomographic scanning leads to better survival as opposed to selective scanning in trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 77:534–539
Jiang L, Ma Y, Jiang S, Ye L, Zheng Z, Xu Y, Zhang M (2014) Comparison of whole-body computed tomography vs selective radiological imaging on outcomes in major trauma patients: a meta-analysis. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 22:54
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie (DGU), Sektion Intensiv- & Notfallmedizin Schwerverletztenversorgung (NIS) Arbeitskreis TraumaRegister, AUC – Akademie der Unfallchirurgie GmbH (2017) TraumaRegister DGU® Jahresbericht 2017. http://www.traumaregister-dgu.de/de/service/downloads.html. Zugegriffen: 29. Mai 2018
Hinkelbein J, Braunecker S, Neuhaus C, Drinhaus H, Bernhard M, Struck M et al (2016) Notfallmedizinische Forschungsergebnisse 2015/2016für die Praxis – Teil 2: Neurologische Notfälle, Atemwegsmanagement, Trauma, pädiatrsiche Notfälle. Notfallmedizin up2date 11:407–424. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-121850
Shannon L, Peachey T, Skipper N, Adiotomre E, Chopra A, Marappan B, Kotnis N (2015) Comparison of clinically suspected injuries with injuries detected at whole-body CT in suspected multi-trauma victims. Clin Radiol 70:1205–1211
Stengel D, Ottersbach C, Matthes G, Weigeldt M, Grundei S, Rademacher G, Tittel A, Mutze S, Ekkernkamp A, Frank M, Schmucker U, Seifert J (2012) Accuracy of single-pass whole-body computed tomography for detection of injuries in patients with major blunt trauma. CMAJ : Canadian. canadienne, Bd. 184. Medical, Association journal = journal de l’Association medicale, S 869–876
Rotondo MF, Schwab CW, McGonigal MD, Phillips GR 3rd, Fruchterman TM, Kauder DR, Latenser BA, Angood PA (1993) ‘Damage control’: an approach for improved survival in exsanguinating penetrating abdominal injury. J Trauma 35:375–382
Waibel BH, Rotondo MM (2012) Damage control surgery: it’s evolution over the last 20 years. Rev Col Bras Cir 39:314–321
Scalea TM, Boswell SA, Scott JD, Mitchell KA, Kramer ME, Pollak AN (2000) External fixation as a bridge to intramedullary nailing for patients with multiple injuries and with femur fractures: damage control orthopedics. J Trauma 48:613–621
Cirocchi R, Montedori A, Farinella E, Bonacini I, Tagliabue L, Abraha I (2013) Damage control surgery for abdominal trauma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 28(3):CD007438. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007438.pub3
Rixen D, Steinhausen E, Sauerland S, Lefering R, Maegele MG, Bouillon B, Grass G, Neugebauer EAM (2016) Randomized, controlled, two-arm, interventional, multicenter study on risk-adapted damage control orthopedic surgery of femur shaft fractures in multiple-trauma patients. Trials 17:47
Pape H, Stalp M, Dahlweid M, Regel G, Tscherne H (1999) Welche primäre Operationsdauer ist hinsichtlich eines „Borderline-Zustandes“ polytraumatisierter Patienten vertretbar? Eine prospektive Evaluation anhand des Traumaregisters der DGU. Arbeitsgemeinschaft „Polytrauma“ der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie. Unfallchirurg 102:861–869
Ringdal KG, Coats TJ, Lefering R, Di Bartolomeo S, Steen PA, Roise O, Handolin L, Lossius HM (2008) The Utstein template for uniform reporting of data following major trauma: a joint revision by SCANTEM, TARN, DGU-TR and RITG. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 16:7
Brammen D, Walcher F, Röhrig R, Heitmann KU, Majeed RW, Thun S (2015) Das DIVI-Notaufnahmeprotokoll wird interoperabel. E‑health-compass : Intensiv- und. Notfallmedizin
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Interessenkonflikt
H. Trentzsch, M. Maegele, U. Nienaber, T. Paffrath und R. Lefering geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.
Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.
Additional information
Redaktion
W. Mutschler, München
H. Trentzsch, München
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Trentzsch, H., Maegele, M., Nienaber, U. et al. Der Datensatz des TraumaRegister DGU®, seine Entwicklung über 25 Jahre und Fortschritte in der Schwerverletzenversorgung. Unfallchirurg 121, 794–801 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-018-0555-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-018-0555-y