No abstract

Introduction The role of telemedicine is rapidly evolving across medical specialties and orthopaedics. The utility of telemedicine to identify operative candidates and determine surgical plans has yet to be demonstrated. We sought to assess whether surgical plans proposed following telemedicine visits changed after subsequent in-person interaction across orthopaedic subspecialties. Materials and methods We identified all elective telemedicine encounters across two academic institutions from March 1, 2020 to July 31, 2020. We identified patients indicated for surgery with a specific surgical plan during the virtual visit. The surgical plans delineated during the telemedicine encounter were then compared to final pre-operative plans documented following subsequent in-person evaluation. Changes in the surgical plan between telemedicine and in-person encounters were defined using a standardised schema. Regression analysis was used to evaluate factors associated with a change in surgical plan between visits across specialties, including the number of virtual examination manoeuvres performed. Results We identified 303 instances of a patient being indicated for orthopaedic surgery during a telemedicine encounter. In 11 cases (4%), the plan was changed between telemedicine and subsequent in-person encounter. No plans were changed amongst patients indicated for joint arthroplasty and foot and ankle surgery, whilst 4% of plans were changed amongst sports surgery and upper extremity/shoulder surgery. Surgical plans had the highest rate of change amongst spine surgery patients (8%). There was notable variability in the conduct of virtual examinations across subspecialties. Conclusion Our results demonstrate the capability of telemedicine to support development of accurate surgical plans for orthopaedic patients across several subspecialties. Our findings also highlight the substantial variation in the utilisation of physical examination manoeuvres conducted via telemedicine across institutions, subspecialties, and providers. Description of study type Level IV, retrospective cohort study.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Background Healthcare disparities are well documented across multiple subspecialties in orthopaedics. The widespread implementation of telemedicine risks worsening these disparities if not carefully executed, despite original assumptions that telemedicine improves overall access to care. Telemedicine also poses unique challenges such as potential language or technological barriers that may alter previously described patterns in orthopaedic disparities. Questions/purposes Are the proportions of patients who use telemedicine across orthopaedic services different among (1) racial and ethnic minorities, (2) non-English speakers, and (3) patients insured through Medicaid during a 10-week period after the implementation of telemedicine in our healthcare system compared with in-person visits during a similar time period in 2019? Methods This was a retrospective comparative study using electronic medical record data to compare new patients establishing orthopaedic care via outpatient telemedicine at two academic urban medical centers between March 2020 and May 2020 with new orthopaedic patients during the same 10-week period in 2019. A total of 11,056 patients were included for analysis, with 1760 in the virtual group and 9296 in the control group. Unadjusted analyses demonstrated patients in the virtual group were younger (median age 57 years versus 59 years; p < 0.001), but there were no differences with regard to gender (56% female versus 56% female; p = 0.66). We used self-reported race or ethnicity as our primary independent variable, with primary language and insurance status considered secondarily. Unadjusted and multivariable adjusted analyses were performed for our primary and secondary predictors using logistic regression. We also assessed interactions between race or ethnicity, primary language, and insurance type. Results After adjusting for age, gender, subspecialty, insurance, and median household income, we found that patients who were Hispanic (odds ratio 0.59 [95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.91]; p = 0.02) or Asian were less likely (OR 0.73 [95% CI 0.53 to 0.99]; p = 0.04) to be seen through telemedicine than were patients who were white. After controlling for confounding variables, we also found that speakers of languages other than English or Spanish were less likely to have a telemedicine visit than were people whose primary language was English (OR 0.34 [95% CI 0.18 to 0.65]; p = 0.001), and that patients insured through Medicaid were less likely to be seen via telemedicine than were patients who were privately insured (OR 0.83 [95% CI 0.69 to 0.98]; p = 0.03). Conclusion Despite initial promises that telemedicine would help to bridge gaps in healthcare, our results demonstrate disparities in orthopaedic telemedicine use based on race or ethnicity, language, and insurance type. The telemedicine group was slightly younger, which we do not believe undermines the findings. As healthcare moves toward increased telemedicine use, we suggest several approaches to ensure that patients of certain racial, ethnic, or language groups do not experience disparate barriers to care. These might include individual patient- or provider-level approaches like expanded telemedicine schedules to accommodate weekends and evenings, institutional investment in culturally conscious outreach materials such as advertisements on community transport systems, or government-level provisions such as reimbursement for telephone-only encounters. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.

A minority of U.S. teaching orthopaedic institutions publish MPFL reconstruction rehabilitation protocols online. Furthermore, there is a high degree of variability in both the composition and timing of rehabilitation modalities across these protocols.

Background:The optimal postoperative rehabilitation protocol following repair of complete proximal hamstring tendon ruptures is the subject of ongoing investigation, with a need for more standardized regimens and evidence-based modalities.Purpose:To assess the variability across proximal hamstring tendon repair rehabilitation protocols published online by United States (US) orthopaedic teaching programs.Study Design:Cross-sectional study.Methods:Online proximal hamstring physical therapy protocols from US academic orthopaedic programs were reviewed. A web-based search using the search term complete proximal hamstring repair rehabilitation protocol provided an additional 14 protocols. A comprehensive scoring rubric was developed after review of all protocols and was used to assess each protocol for both the presence of various rehabilitation components and the point at which those components were introduced.Results:Of 50 rehabilitation protocols identified, 35 satisfied inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Twenty-five protocols (71%) recommended immediate postoperative bracing: 12 (34%) prescribed knee bracing, 8 (23%) prescribed hip bracing, and 5 (14%) did not specify the type of brace recommended. Fourteen protocols (40%) advised immediate nonweightbearing with crutches, while 16 protocols (46%) permitted immediate toe-touch weightbearing. Advancement to full weightbearing was allowed at a mean of 7.1 weeks (range, 4-12 weeks). Most protocols (80%) recommended gentle knee and hip passive range of motion and active range of motion, starting at a mean 1.4 weeks (range, 0-3 weeks) and 4.0 weeks (range, 0-6 weeks), respectively. However, only 6 protocols (17%) provided specific time points to initiate full hip and knee range of motion: a mean 8.0 weeks (range, 4-12 weeks) and 7.8 weeks (range, 0-12 weeks), respectively. Considerable variability was noted in the inclusion and timing of strengthening, stretching, proprioception, and cardiovascular exercises. Fifteen protocols (43%) required completion of specific return-to-sport criteria before resuming training.Conclusion:Marked variability is found in both the composition and timing of rehabilitation components across the various complete proximal hamstring repair rehabilitation protocols published online. This finding mirrors the variability of proposed rehabilitation protocols in the professional literature and represents an opportunity to improve patient care.

Background:Investigations specifically delineating the safest and most efficacious components of physical therapy after ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) reconstruction of the elbow are lacking. As such, while a number of recommendations regarding postoperative therapy have been published, no validated rehabilitation guidelines currently exist.Purpose:To assess the variability of rehabilitation protocols utilized by orthopaedic residency programs in the United States (US) and those described in the scientific literature.Study Design:Cross-sectional study.Methods:Online UCL reconstruction rehabilitation protocols from US orthopaedic programs and from the scientific literature were reviewed. A comprehensive scoring rubric was developed to assess each protocol for the presence of various rehabilitation components as well as the timing of their introduction.Results:Overall, 22 protocols (14%) from 155 US Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) orthopaedic programs and 8 protocols published in the scientific literature detailing UCL reconstruction postoperative rehabilitation were identified and reviewed. After reconstruction, the majority of ERAS and review article protocols (77% and 88%, respectively) advised immediate splinting at 90° of elbow flexion. The mean time to splint discontinuation across all protocols was 2.0 weeks (range, 1-3 weeks). There was considerable variability in elbow range of motion recommendations; however, most protocols detailed goals for full extension and full flexion (>130°) at a mean 5.3 weeks (range, 4-6 weeks) and 5.5 weeks (range, 4-6 weeks), respectively. Significant diversity in the inclusion and timing of strengthening, proprioceptive, and throwing exercises was also apparent. Thirteen ERAS (59%) and 7 review article (88%) protocols specifically mentioned return to competition as an endpoint. ERAS protocols permitted return to competition significantly earlier than review article protocols (29.6 vs 39.0 weeks, respectively; P = .042).Conclusion:There is notable variability in both the composition and timing of rehabilitation components across a small number of protocols available online. While our understanding of postoperative rehabilitation for UCL reconstruction evolves, outcome-based studies focused on identifying clinically beneficial modalities and metrics are necessary to enable meaningful standardization.

Background and objectivesThe role of telemedicine in the evaluation and treatment of patients with spinal disorders is rapidly expanding, brought on largely by the COVID-19 pandemic. Within this context, the ability of pain specialists to accurately diagnose and plan appropriate interventional spine procedures based entirely on telemedicine visits, without an in-person evaluation, remains to be established. In this study, our primary objective was to assess the relevance of telemedicine to interventional spine procedure planning by determining whether procedure plans established solely from virtual visits changed following in-person evaluation.MethodsWe reviewed virtual and in-person clinical encounters from our academic health system’s 10 interventional spine specialists. We included patients who were seen exclusively via telemedicine encounters and indicated for an interventional procedure with documented procedural plans. Virtual plans were then compared with the actual procedures performed following in-person evaluation. Demographic data as well as the type and extent of physical examination performed by the interventional spine specialist were also recorded.ResultsOf the 87 new patients included, the mean age was 60 years (SE 1.4 years) and the preprocedural plan established by telemedicine, primarily videoconferencing, did not change for 76 individuals (87%; 95% CI 0.79 to 0.94) following in-person evaluation. Based on the size of our sample, interventional procedures indicated solely during telemedicine encounters may be accurate in 79%–94% of cases in the broader population.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that telemedicine evaluations are a generally accurate means of preprocedural assessment and development of interventional spine procedure plans. These findings clearly demonstrate the capabilities of telemedicine for evaluating spine patients and planning interventional spine procedures.