Search Results
Search for other papers by Pierre J Hoffmeyer in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Pierre J. Hoffmeyer in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Pierre J Hoffmeyer in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Pierre J. Hoffmeyer in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:387-389. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210950
Search for other papers by Pierre J. Hoffmeyer in
Google Scholar
PubMed
EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:823-824. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.212000
Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, UK
Search for other papers by Anne Lübbeke in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Andrew J Carr in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Pierre Hoffmeyer in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-
Clinical registries are health information systems, which have the mission to collect multidimensional real-world data over the long term, and to generate relevant information and actionable knowledge to address current serious healthcare problems.
-
This article provides an overview of clinical registries and their relevant stakeholders, focussing on registry structure and functioning, each stakeholder’s specific interests, and on their involvement in the registry’s information input and output.
-
Stakeholders of clinical registries include the patients, healthcare providers (professionals and facilities), financiers (government, insurance companies), public health and regulatory agencies, industry, the research community and the media.
-
The article discusses (1) challenges in stakeholder interaction and how to strengthen the central role of the patient, (2) the importance of adding cost reporting to enable informed value choices, and (3) the need for proof of clinical and public health utility of registries.
-
In its best form, a registry is a mission-driven, independent stakeholder–registry team collaboration that enables rapid, transparent and open-access knowledge generation and dissemination.
Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4 DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180077
Search for other papers by Patrick Goetti in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Patrick J. Denard in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Philippe Collin in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Mohamed Ibrahim in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Pierre Hoffmeyer in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
Division of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Department of Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
Search for other papers by Alexandre Lädermann in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-
The stability of the glenohumeral joint depends on soft tissue stabilizers, bone morphology and dynamic stabilizers such as the rotator cuff and long head of the biceps tendon. Shoulder stabilization techniques include anatomic procedures such as repair of the labrum or restoration of bone loss, but also non-anatomic options such as remplissage or tendon transfers.
-
Rotator cuff repair should restore the cuff anatomy, reattach the rotator cable and respect the coracoacromial arch whenever possible. Tendon transfer, superior capsular reconstruction or balloon implantation have been proposed for irreparable lesions.
-
Shoulder rehabilitation should focus on restoring balanced glenohumeral and scapular force couples in order to avoid an upward migration of the humeral head and secondary cuff impingement. The primary goal of cuff repair is to be as anatomic as possible and to create a biomechanically favourable environment for tendon healing.
Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:508-518. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.200006
Search for other papers by Alexandre Lädermann in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Stephen S. Burkhart in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Pierre Hoffmeyer in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Lionel Neyton in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Philippe Collin in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Evan Yates in
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Patrick J. Denard in
Google Scholar
PubMed
-
Rotator cuff lesions (RCL) have considerable variability in location, tear pattern, functional impairment, and repairability.
-
Historical classifications for differentiating these lesions have been based upon factors such as the size and shape of the tear, and the degree of atrophy and fatty infiltration. Additional recent descriptions include bipolar rotator cuff insufficiency, ‘Fosbury flop tears’, and musculotendinous lesions.
-
Recommended treatment is based on the location of the lesion, patient factors and associated pathology, and often includes personal experience and data from case series. Development of a more comprehensive classification which integrates historical and newer descriptions of RCLs may help to guide treatment further.
Cite this article: Lädermann A, Burkhart SS, Hoffmeyer P, et al. Classification of full thickness rotator cuff lesions: a review. EFORT Open Rev 2016;1:420-430. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.1.160005.
