CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Laryngorhinootologie 2020; 99(S 01): S301-S335
DOI: 10.1055/a-1012-9420
Referat
Eigentümer und Copyright ©Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2019 Article in several languages: deutsch | English
Orlando Guntinas-Lichius
1  Klinik für Hals-, Nasen-, Ohrenheilkunde, Universitätsklinikum Jena
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
16 March 2020 (online)

  

Abstract

The treatment of salivary gland diseases represents an important segment of otorhinolaryngology. The individual otorhinolaryngologist might, however, see only a few cases per year from a large variety of salivary gland diseases. Surgical and endoscopic minimal-invasive therapy concepts play a key role. Therefore, gain of knowledge cannot only be provided by prospective clinical trials but also by meta-analyses and potentially also by registry data. Many reliable indicators are established to measure the function of a diseased salivary gland or the improvement of its function after therapy. In contrast, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are not sufficiently developed. It has to be demanded that these indicators are consequently used in clinical trials. Perspectively, the same indicators could also be used for quality control for the outpatient and inpatient sector in clinical routine. The framework conditions for high-quality acquisition of knowledge are given by the otorhinolaryngology specialist medical training, the obligation of life-long continuous medical education, and certified salivary gland courses. Nevertheless, the specifications of quality standards for the treatment of patients with salivary gland diseases are not well formulated. In contrast to other disciplines also addressing salivary gland diseases, otorhinolaryngology ought to develop standards with high requirements of quality of care for salivary gland diseases.

Abstract

The treatment of salivary gland diseases represents an important segment of otorhinolaryngology. The individual otorhinolaryngologist might, however, see only a few cases per year from a large variety of salivary gland diseases. Surgical and endoscopic minimal-invasive therapy concepts play a key role. Therefore, gain of knowledge cannot only be provided by prospective clinical trials but also by meta-analyses and potentially also by registry data. Many reliable indicators are established to measure the function of a diseased salivary gland or the improvement of its function after therapy. In contrast, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are not sufficiently developed. It has to be demanded that these indicators are consequently used in clinical trials. Perspectively, the same indicators could also be used for quality control for the outpatient and inpatient sector in clinical routine. The framework conditions for high-quality acquisition of knowledge are given by the otorhinolaryngology specialist medical training, the obligation of life-long continuous medical education, and certified salivary gland courses. Nevertheless, the specifications of quality standards for the treatment of patients with salivary gland diseases are not well formulated. In contrast to other disciplines also addressing salivary gland diseases, otorhinolaryngology ought to develop standards with high requirements of quality of care for salivary gland diseases.