Background: Telemedicine platforms have been developed to support the convenient delivery of health care services to their patients while maintaining appropriate quality of care. However, it is unclear whether they can be utilized effectively in patients with pediatric spinal deformity (PSD). Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and patient satisfaction associated with virtual visit (VV) utilization in PSD patients in comparison to general pediatric orthopaedic indications. Methods: Of the 482 VVs offered to pediatric orthopaedic patients at a large academic health care system between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2018, a total of 189 VVs conducted by board-certified orthopaedic surgeons were included in the final analysis. Patient satisfaction scores were collected at the end of each VV by patient and parent rankings of the surgeon and the telemedicine service. Data on patients, visits, and connectivity sessions characteristics were collected and statistically compared between PSD visits (n=33) versus those conducted for general pediatric orthopaedic indications (n=156). Results: Although PSD patients were older (15±3.7 vs. 12±4.7 y; P<0.01), mostly female (76% vs. 47%, P=0.003), and had longer VVs (8±4.6 vs. 5±3.6 min; P=0.003) versus their general pediatric orthopaedic counterparts, they demonstrated similarly high satisfaction scores for surgeon performance (5±0 vs. 4.8±0.1 points; P=0.08) and overall satisfaction (3±2.4 vs. 3.5±2.1; P=0.23). Approximately 80% of all VVs were conducted over mobile devices. Wait time was substantially less for PSD VVs relative to subsequent office visits (13±10 vs. 41±30 min; P<0.001). Conclusions: Our analysis found that telemedicine VVs provided a convenient alternative to traditional in-office visits for PSD patients. Specifically, we found that PSD patients received faster care with comparable satisfaction. The findings of our present analysis should encourage health care systems to continually evaluate and implement telehealth platforms to improve both the accessibility and appropriate quality of care. Level of Evidence: Level IV.

No abstract

Antibiotic-loaded cement (ABLC) has been widely utilized as an adjuvant treatment for patients with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) but has also evolved to play a prophylactic role against infection in primary total joint arthroplasties (TJA). Nevertheless, there is currently a paucity of studies that systematically investigated this concept. This review aimed at answering the following questions: (I) Can routine use of ABLC help reduce the current infection rates in primary TJA? (II) What are the risks associated with this approach? And (III) can routine use be justified in primary TJA from an economic standpoint? Multiple databases were queried including PubMed, EMBASE, EBSCO Host, and SCOPUS. Studies published between January 1, 1990 and March 31, 2018 were reviewed. Inclusion criteria were studies reporting: (I) clinical outcomes of routine use of ABLC in primary hip and knee arthroplasty with 2-year minimum follow-up, (II) complications related to the use of ABLC, (III) cost of using ABLC. The final analysis included 24 studies. Data from multiple studies demonstrate contradictory results for infection rates when ABLC is used in all primary procedures with a majority of studies showing similar infection rates between ABLC and plain cement. The main concerns associated with routine use of ABLC are negative effects on the mechanical stability of cement, possible systemic and local toxicity of the absorbed antibiotic, and development of resistant bacterial strains. However, current literature has not clinically validated these concerns. Lastly, with an estimated increase in 117 million dollars with the routine use of ABLC in only 50% of TJAs performed each year, it is difficult to justify the use of ABLC without clear superiority in reducing infection. The use of ABLC has undeniably changed the way orthopaedic surgeons deal with PJI today. However, the large-scale, prophylactic use of ABLC in primary TJAs requires further research and justification.

Study Objectives: The objective of this study was to characterize sleep health in a large, diverse population of college athletes. The study utilized the Athletic Sleep Screening Questionnaire, a clinically validated questionnaire, designed to screen athletes for a clinically significant degree of poor sleep health, and to determine if they require intervention. Methods: College athletes from 4 different National College Athletic Association institutions were surveyed using the Athletic Sleep Screening Questionnaire. Descriptive information including sex, sport, and college year was also collected. The Athletic Sleep Screening Questionnaire was scored according to prior clinically validated methods to determine a sleep difficulty score, clinical sleep problem category (none, mild, moderate, or severe), and need for assessment by a physician due to poor sleep health. Results: A total of 1055 surveys were collected with a 95% response rate. Respondents were 36% female, 64% male, and included athletes competing in 15 different sports. Approximately 25% of participants were found to have a clinically meaningful problem with their sleep. Athletes entering their second or higher year of college were more likely to report worse sleep compared to those entering their first year (one-way analysis of variance, Kruskall-Wallis P < .001). Conclusions: A substantial portion of college athletes experience poor sleep health and would benefit from interventions aimed at improving sleep. The Athletic Sleep Screening Questionnaire appears to be a cost-and time-efficient way to evaluate sleep health in a large athletic population.

No abstract