Background In the course of digitization, smartphones are affecting an increasing number of areas of users’ lives, giving them almost ubiquitous access to the internet and other web applications. Mobile health (mHealth) has become an integral part of some areas of patient care. In contrast to other disciplines, routine integration of mobile devices in orthopedics and trauma surgery in Germany is still in its infancy. Objective This study aimed to investigate physicians’ current state of opinion regarding acceptance, future prospects, and risks of medical apps in the field of orthopedics and trauma surgery in Germany. Methods A web-based survey among orthopedics and trauma surgeons in German university hospitals on the use of medical apps in everyday clinical practice was conducted between September 2018 and February 2019. The survey consisted of 13 open- and closed-ended or multiple-choice questions. A logistic regression analysis was performed to ascertain the effects of interindividual characteristics on the likelihood of participants’ app and smartphone usage behavior. Results A total of 206 physicians participated in the survey. All of the participants (206/206, 100%) owned a smartphone, and 79.1% (159/201) used the device, while 64.7% (130/201) used apps regularly in everyday clinical practice. Medical apps were perceived as beneficial, given their substantial future promise, by 90.1% (181/201) of the participants. However, 62.5% (120/192) of the participants were not satisfied with the current supply of medical apps in app stores. Desired specifications for future apps were “intuitive usability” (167/201, 83.1%), “no advertising” (145/201, 72.1%), and “free apps” (92/201, 45.8%). The attributes “transparent app development and app sponsoring” (75/201, 37.3%) and the existence of an “easy-to-understand privacy statement” (50/201, 24.9%) were of minor relevance. The majority of the participants (162/194, 83.5%) considered that future apps in the field of “medical research” would provide the greatest benefit. The greatest predicted risks were “data misuse” (147/189, 77.8%), “usage of untrustworthy apps” (135/189, 71.4%), and “alienation from patients” (51/189, 27.0%). Increasing age was significantly associated with a reduction in the likelihood of regular smartphone (odds ratio [OR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.86-0.97; P=.002) and app (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85-0.96; P=.001) usage, while the medical profession grade had no significant impact on the usage behavior. Conclusions The study demonstrates that young German doctors in orthopedics and trauma surgery already use smartphones and apps in everyday clinical practice. Medical apps are considered to play an important role in the future. However, a significant discrepancy exists between the supply and demand of mHealth applications, which creates a legal and ethical vacuum with regard to data protection.

As breast augmentation is one of the most popular cosmetic procedure, since their FDA approval in 1962 the safety of implant-related complications has been broadly disputed. Although decades have passed, breast implant illness still represents a poorly defined and controversial complication. With an upcoming nonscientific discussion on mainstream media and social media, revealing BII’s etiology is quite urgent, finally influencing patients’ decision and creating a trustful doctor-patient relationship. Up to now, little or no scientific research is available on BII and no final conclusion regarding its etiology, clinical manifestations, diagnostic criteria or treatment has been made up to now. This review aims to give an overview of etiology hypothesis of BII and seek inspiration to improve BII patients’ conditions.

Currently, the use of medical apps is not an adequate alternative to the discharge letter. However, it is only a matter of time before the innovative potential of applications is used as a communication tool in outpatient and inpatient care. It is, therefore, essential to start creating the legal, ethical and medical framework and to establish a relevant regulatory body.

Background It is undeniable that appropriate smartphone apps offer enormous opportunities for dealing with future challenges in orthopedic surgery and public health, in general. However, it is still unclear how the apps currently available in the two major app stores can be used in daily clinical routine by German orthopedic surgeons. Objective This study aimed to gain evidence regarding the quantity and quality of apps available in the two major app stores and their suitability for use by orthopedic surgeons in Germany. Methods We conducted a systematic, keyword-based app store screening to obtain evidence concerning the quantity and quality of commercially available apps. Apps that met the inclusion criteria were evaluated using the app synopsis–checklist for users and the German Mobile App Rating Scale for secure use, trustworthiness, and quality. Results The investigation revealed serious shortcomings regarding legal and medical aspects. Furthermore, most apps turned out to be useless and unsuitable for the clinical field of application (4242/4249, 99.84%). Finally, 7 trustworthy and high-quality apps (7/4249, 0.16%) offering secure usage in the daily clinical routine of orthopedists were identified. These apps mainly focused on education (5/7). None of them were CE (Conformité Européenne) certified. Moreover, there are no studies providing evidence that these apps have any positive use whatsoever. Conclusions The data obtained in our study suggest that the number of trustworthy and high-quality apps on offer is extremely low. Nowadays, finding appropriate apps in the fast-moving, complex, dynamic, and rudimentarily controlled app stores is most challenging. Promising approaches, for example, systematic app store screenings, app-rating developments, reviews or app libraries, and the creation of consistent standards have been established. However, further efforts are necessary to ensure that these innovative mobile health apps not only provide the correct information but are also safe to use in daily clinical practice.

Background Ankle sprains are one of the most frequent sports injuries. With respect to the high prevalence of ankle ligament injuries and patients’ young age, optimizing treatment and rehabilitation is mandatory to prevent future complications such as chronic ankle instability or osteoarthritis. Objective In modern times, an increasing amount of smartphone usage in patient care is evident. Studies investigating mobile health (mHealth)–based rehabilitation programs after ankle sprains are rare. The aim of this study was to expose any issues present in the development process of a medical app as well as associated risks and chances. Methods The development process of the Ankle Joint App was defined in chronological order using a protocol. The app’s quality was evaluated using the (user) German Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS-G) by voluntary foot and ankle surgeons (n=20) and voluntary athletes (n=20). Results A multidisciplinary development team built a hybrid app with a corresponding backend structure. The app’s content provides actual medical literature, training videos, and a log function. Excellent interrater reliability (interrater reliability=0.92; 95% CI 0.86-0.96) was obtained. The mean overall score for the Ankle Joint App was 4.4 (SD 0.5). The mean subjective quality scores were 3.6 (surgeons: SD 0.7) and 3.8 (athletes: SD 0.5). Behavioral change had mean scores of 4.1 (surgeons: SD 0.7) and 4.3 (athletes: SD 0.7). The medical gain value, rated by the surgeons only, was 3.9 (SD 0.6). Conclusions The data obtained demonstrate that mHealth-based rehabilitation programs might be a useful tool for patient education and collection of personal data. The achieved (user) MARS-G scores support a high quality of the tested app. Medical app development with an a priori defined target group and a precisely intended purpose, in a multidisciplinary team, is highly promising. Follow-up studies are required to obtain funded evidence for the ankle joints app’s effects on economical and medical aspects in comparison with established nondigital therapy paths.