Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Erfassung selbstberichteter Patienten-Outcomes in der Unfallchirurgie

Klinischer Nutzen von „patient reported outcome measures“

Documentation of self-reported patient outcomes in trauma surgery

Clinical benefits of patient reported outcome measures

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Unfallchirurg Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Der zukünftig fortschreitende Anspruch der evidenzbasierten Medizin macht die flächendeckende Erfassung von funktionellen Therapieergebnissen nach unfallchirurgischen Behandlungen erforderlich. Insbesondere die subjektive, patientenbasierte Ergebniszufriedenheit steht im Mittelpunkt. Patient reported outcome measures (PROM) sind ein geeignetes Mittel, um diese Ergebnisse valide, kostengünstig und zeiteffizient zur erfassen. Zudem bieten moderne technische Möglichkeiten vielversprechende Chancen, um speziell die unfallchirurgisch wichtige Erhebung der spezifischen Gelenkfunktion, einschließlich Bestimmung des Bewegungsumfangs, zuverlässig, z. B. mithilfe des Smartphone-Einsatzes, zu bestimmen.

Abstract

The future progressive aspiration of evidence-based medicine makes it necessary to carry out a comprehensive documentation of functional treatment after trauma surgery. Especially the subjective, patient-centered satisfaction with treatment results will be the focus of attention. Patient centered outcome measures (PROM) are potent instruments to capture the patients’ functional status validly and in a cost and time-efficient manner. Additionally, modern technical options have the potential to evaluate specific joint function even better. Parameters, such as range of motion can soon be measured by the patient using the widely spread smartphone technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5

Abbreviations

DASH:

Disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand

DGU:

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie

EbHC:

Evidence based health care

ESAS:

Elbow Self-Assessment Score

FAAM:

Foot and Ankle Ability Measure

FAOS:

Foot and Ankle Outcome Score

IKDC:

International Knee Documentation Committee

IMU:

Inertial measurement unit

KOOS:

Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score

LBS:

Lange Bizepssehne

MAQ:

Munich Ankle Questionnaire

MKG:

Munich Knee Questionnaire

MSQ:

Munich Shoulder Questionnaire

MWQ:

Munich Wrist Questionnaire

PROM:

Patient reported outcome measure

QoL:

Quality of life

RoM:

Range of motion

SFR:

Swedish Fracture Register

SMFA:

Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment

SPADI:

Shoulder Pain and Disability Index

WOMET:

Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool

Literatur

  1. AWMF (2011) A S3-Leitlinie Polytrauma/Schwerverletzten-Behandlung, Registrierungsnummer 012–019. Düsseldorf. http://www.awmf.org/leitlinien. Zugegriffen: 02/2020

  2. Beirer M, Fiedler N, Huber S et al (2015) The munich knee questionnaire: development and validation of a new patient-reported outcome measurement tool for knee disorders. Arthroscopy 31:1522–1529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Beirer M, Friese H, Lenich A et al (2017) The Elbow Self-Assessment Score (ESAS): development and validation of a new patient-reported outcome measurement tool for elbow disorders. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25:2230–2236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Beirer M, Serly J, Vester H et al (2016) The Munich Wrist Questionnaire (MWQ)—development and validation of a new patient-reported outcome measurement tool for wrist disorders. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 17:167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Biberthaler P, Beirer M, Kirchhoff S et al (2013) Significant benefit for older patients after arthroscopic subacromial decompression: a long-term follow-up study. Int Orthop 37:457–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Charlton PC, Mentiplay BF, Pua YH et al (2015) Reliability and concurrent validity of a Smartphone, bubble inclinometer and motion analysis system for measurement of hip joint range of motion. J Sci Med Sport 18:262–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Deutsche-Gesellschaft-Für-Unfallchirurgie Jahresbericht (2019) TraumaRegister DGU® für den Zeitraum bis Ende 2018. http://www.traumaregister-dgu.de/fileadmin/user_upload/traumaregister-dgu.de/docs/Downloads/TR-DGU-Jahresbericht_2018.pdf. Zugegriffen: 02/2020

  8. Greve F, Beirer M, Zyskowski M et al (2019) Prospective outcome analysis following tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon along with locking plate osteosynthesis for proximal humerus fractures. Injury 50:681–685

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Greve F, Braun KF, Vitzthum V et al (2018) The Munich Ankle Questionnaire (MAQ): a self-assessment tool for a comprehensive evaluation of ankle disorders. Eur J Med Res 23:46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hudak PL, Amadio PC, Bombardier C (1996) Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med 29:602–608

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kärrholm J (2010) The Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register (www.shpr.se). Acta Orthop 81:3–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Karsten MM, Speiser D, Hartmann C et al (2018) Web-based patient-reported outcomes using the international consortium for health outcome measurement Dataset in a major German university hospital: observational study. JMIR Cancer 4:e11373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Knutson K, Robertsson O (2010) The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register (www.knee.se). Acta Orthop 81:5–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lefering R, Huber-Wagner S, Nienaber U et al (2014) Update of the trauma risk adjustment model of the TraumaRegister DGU™: the Revised Injury Severity Classification, version II. Crit Care 18:476–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lysholm J, Gillquist J (1982) Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. Am J Sports Med 10:150–154

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Mourcou Q, Fleury A, Diot B et al (2015) Mobile phone-based joint angle measurement for functional assessment and rehabilitation of proprioception. Biomed Res Int 2015:328142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Roach KE, Budiman-Mak E, Songsiridej N et al (1991) Development of a shoulder pain and disability index. Arthritis Care Res 4:143–149

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Rogmark C, Johnell O (2006) Primary arthroplasty is better than internal fixation of displaced femoral neck fractures: a meta-analysis of 14 randomized studies with 2,289 patients. Acta Orthop 77:359–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS et al (1998) Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)—development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 28:88–96

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Schmidutz F, Beirer M, Braunstein V et al (2012) The Munich Shoulder Questionnaire (MSQ): development and validation of an effective patient-reported tool for outcome measurement and patient safety in shoulder surgery. Patient Saf Surg 6:9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB (1999) Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: the PHQ primary care study. Primary care evaluation of mental disorders. Patient health questionnaire. JAMA 282:1737–1744

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Tegner Y, Lysholm J (1985) Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 198:43–49

    Google Scholar 

  23. Weldring T, Smith SM (2013) Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Health Serv Insights 6:61–68

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Wennergren D, Ekholm C, Sandelin A et al (2015) The Swedish fracture register: 103,000 fractures registered. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 16:338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wilson I, Bohm E, Lubbeke A et al (2019) Orthopaedic registries with patient-reported outcome measures. EFORT Open Rev 4:357–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Zhu R, Zhou Z (2004) A Real-Time Articulated Human Motion Tracking Using Tri-Axis Inertial/Magnetic Sensors Package. Ieee Trans Neural Syst Rehabil Eng 12:295–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik und Poliklinik für Unfallchirurgie, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, München, Deutschland

    M. Müller, F. Greve, P. Rittstieg & P. Biberthaler

  2. Klinik für Unfallchirurgie und Orthopädie, Schwarzwald-Baar Klinikum, Villingen-Schwenningen, Deutschland

    M. Beirer

Authors
  1. M. Müller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. Greve
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. Rittstieg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Beirer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. P. Biberthaler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Müller.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

M. Müller, F. Greve, P. Rittstieg, M. Beirer und P. Biberthaler geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autoren keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien.

Additional information

Redaktion

P. Biberthaler, München

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Müller, M., Greve, F., Rittstieg, P. et al. Erfassung selbstberichteter Patienten-Outcomes in der Unfallchirurgie. Unfallchirurg 123, 354–359 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-020-00802-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-020-00802-w

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation