Advertisement

Der Unfallchirurg

, Volume 121, Issue 10, pp 794–801 | Cite as

Der Datensatz des TraumaRegister DGU®, seine Entwicklung über 25 Jahre und Fortschritte in der Schwerverletzenversorgung

  • H. Trentzsch
  • M. Maegele
  • U. Nienaber
  • T. Paffrath
  • R. Lefering
Leitthema

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.

Schlüsselwörter

Datenerfassung Dokumentation Ganzkörperbildgebung „Damage control surgery“ Blutgerinnung 

The TraumaRegister DGU® dataset, its development over 25 years and advances in the care of severely injured patients

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.

Keywords

Data collection Documentation Whole-body imaging Damage control surgery Blood coagulation 

Notes

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

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.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Bardenheuer M (1994) Das Traumaregister der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie. Unfallchirurg 97:230–237Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bouillon B, Hoffmann R, Siebert H, Sturm J (2014) Preface. German Trauma Registry. Injury 45(Suppl 3):S4–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nast-Kolb D, Ruchholtz S, Oestern HJ, Neugebauer E (2000) Das Traumaregister der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Polytrauma der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie. Notfall- und. Rettungsmedizin, Bd. 3Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anonymous (2014) 20 years TraumaRegister DGU®: development, aims and structure. Injury 45(Suppl 3):S6–s13Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    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 30:1356–1365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lefering R (2009) Development and validation of the revised injury severity classification score for severely injured patients. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 35:437–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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) 18:476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Teasdale G, Jennett B (1974) Assessment of coma and impaired consciousness. A practical scale. Lancet 2(7872):81–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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):995–996PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Champion HR, Sacco WJ, Copes WS, Gann DS, Gennarelli TA, Flanagan ME (1989) A revision of the Trauma Score. J Trauma 29(5):623–629PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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):1356–1365PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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):922–925PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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):1228–1236PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lefering R (2009) Development and validation of the revised injury severity classification score for severely injured patients. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 35:437–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Anonymous (2018) Level 3 guideline on the treatment of patients with severe/multiple injuries: AWMF Register-Nr. 012/019. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 44:3–271Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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 63:805–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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 313:471–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Briggs A, Askari R (2016) Damage control resuscitation. Int J Surg 33:218–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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 43:481–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fries D, Martini WZ (2010) Role of fibrinogen in trauma-induced coagulopathy. Br J Anaesth 105:116–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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 10:1342–1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    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:S70–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    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 377:1096–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    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 69:489–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    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) 20:100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chakraverty S, Zealley I, Kessel D (2014) Damage control radiology in the severely injured patient: what the anaesthetist needs to know. Br J Anaesth 113:250–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Davis JW, Hoyt DB, Mackersie RC, McArdle MS (1990) Complications in evaluating abdominal trauma: diagnostic peritoneal lavage versus computerized axial tomography. J Trauma 30:1506–1509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wallis A, Kelly MD, Jones L (2010) Angiography and embolisation for solid abdominal organ injury in adults—a current perspective. World J Emerg Surg 5:18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    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 373:1455–1461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    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:e68880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    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 77:534–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    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 22:54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    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
  40. 40.
    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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    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 70:1205–1211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    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 869–876Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    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 35:375–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Waibel BH, Rotondo MM (2012) Damage control surgery: it’s evolution over the last 20 years. Rev Col Bras Cir 39:314–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    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 48:613–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    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 17:47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    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 102:861–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    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 16:7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Brammen D, Walcher F, Röhrig R, Heitmann KU, Majeed RW, Thun S (2015) Das DIVI-Notaufnahmeprotokoll wird interoperabel. E‑health-compass : Intensiv- und. NotfallmedizinGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Trentzsch
    • 1
  • M. Maegele
    • 2
    • 3
  • U. Nienaber
    • 4
  • T. Paffrath
    • 2
  • R. Lefering
    • 3
  1. 1.Institut für Notfallmedizin und Medizinmanagement (INM)Klinikum der Universität München, LMU MünchenMünchenDeutschland
  2. 2.Klinik für Unfallchirurgie, Orthopädie & SporttraumatologieKlinikum der Privaten Universität Witten/Herdecke Köln-MerheimDeutschland
  3. 3.Institut für Forschung in der operativen Medizin (IFOM)Universität Witten/HerdeckeKölnDeutschland
  4. 4.AUC Akademie der Unfallchirurgie GmbHMünchenDeutschland

Personalised recommendations