Search

Background: During the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic, physicians had to improvise and adapt new ways to provide care to patients. Purposes: The purpose of this study was to assess physicians' sentiments regarding telemedicine and its use in orthopedic practices. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study of attending orthopedic physicians, the majority of whom integrated telemedicine into their practices from March to October 2020. A survey was sent to 517 physicians who had registered for an orthopedics conference. The survey included questions pertaining to various factors regarding telemedicine and each physician's practice. Results: Of the 517 physicians who received the survey, 328 responded, for a 63.4% response rate. Of the 328 respondents, 84.1% did not use telemedicine in their practice prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Even during the pandemic, the physicians most commonly responded that less than 5% of their practice was conducted by telemedicine (n = 103, 31.4%). The second most common response was that more than 20% of visits were done via telemedicine (n = 72, 22.0%); 43.0% of physicians noted that they would not use telemedicine technology in their practice after the pandemic, but 59.1% of physicians would be willing to do annual visits by telemedicine. Ability to examine the patient (2.0 ± 1.0) was rated worse, overall, than either the experience using the technology (3.2 ± 1.0) or the capacity to communicate with the patient (3.6 ± 1.0). Conclusions: Our survey of orthopedic surgeons demonstrates that while the use of telemedicine technology was minimal prior to the pandemic, its use was widely adopted during the pandemic. Nearly half of physicians said that they will continue to use telemedicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patellar tendinopathy can be treated surgically for patients that have failed at least 1 year of nonoperative treatment who continue to have debilitating symptoms. Patellar tendinopathy can cause significant functional deficits, yet little has been reported about the operative treatment of patellar tendinopathy. Hypothesis: A combined arthroscopic and open surgical technique for the treatment of recalcitrant patellar tendinopathyr results in an improvement in function and pain at a minimum 2-year follow-up. The purpose of this study was to present the indications, combined surgical technique, rehabilitation protocol, and the 2-year minimum follow-up results of the operative treatment of recalcitrant patellar tendinopathy. Study Design : Retrospective case series. Methods: A retrospective review was performed of all patients who underwent a surgical primary patellar tendon debridement for recalcitrant patellar tendinopathy by a single surgeon between July 1999 and December 2005. Every patient failed at least 1 year of nonoperative treatment. Patients were excluded from the study if they had previous open knee surgery. Validated patient-reported outcome scores were used to assess function and pain levels pre- and postoperatively (Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee, Tegner activity, and visual analog pain score). Results: Thirty-four consecutive patients (37 consecutive cases) with mean follow-up 3.8 ± 1.6 years (range, 2-7.6 years) underwent the procedure with no complications. The mean age at surgery was 29 years (range, 14-51 years). Postoperatively, the visual analog score decreased by an mean of 6 points (range, 1 to - 10, P < 0.001), and patients were able to return to their preinjury Tegner activity level. When asked if they were satisfied by the overall outcome of their surgery, 28 patients (82%) were completely or mostly satisfied with their surgical outcome on a particular knee; 6 (18%) were somewhat satisfied; and 2 (6%) were dissatisfied. Twenty-seven patients (79%) said they would have the surgery again. Conclusion: The combined arthroscopic and open surgical technique described for chronic recalcitrant patellar tendinopathy successfully reduces knee pain and allows return to preinjury level of activity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background : Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) has emerged as a patient-specific customizable tool that enables 3-dimensional preoperative planning, intraoperative adjustment, robotic-assisted bone preparation, and soft-tissue protection. Haptic rTKA may enhance component positioning, but only a few small studies have examined patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes after haptic rTKA. Purpose : In patients who underwent haptic rTKA, we sought to evaluate (1) the discrepancy in alignment between the executed surgical plan and implanted alignment in the coronal and sagittal planes 1 year postoperatively and (2) patient-reported outcomes 2 years postoperatively. Methods : From a prospectively collected database, we reviewed 105 patients who underwent haptic rTKA from August 2016 to May 2017. Two fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeons independently reviewed hip-to-ankle standing biplanar radiographs to measure overall limb alignment and individual tibial and femoral component alignment relative to the mechanical axis and compared this to the executed surgical plan. Patient-reported outcomes were collected preoperatively and at 2 years postoperatively using the Lower Activity Extremity Score (LEAS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Junior (KOOS Jr.), and Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). Results : Mean patient age was 62.4 years, and mean body mass index was 30.6 kg/m 2 . Interobserver reliability was significant with a κ of 0.89. Absolute mean deviations in postoperative coronal alignment compared to intraoperative alignment were 0.625° ± 0.70° and 0.45° ± 0.50° for the tibia and femur, respectively. Absolute mean deviations in postoperative tibial sagittal alignment were 0.47° ± 0.76°. Overall mechanical alignment was 0.97° ± 1.79°. Outcomes in LEAS, KOOS Jr., and NPRS changed from 8 to 10, 78 to 88.3, and 8 to 1, respectively. Conclusions : Haptic rTKA demonstrated high reliability and accuracy (less than 1°) of tibial coronal, femoral coronal, and tibial sagittal component alignment postoperatively compared to the surgical plan. Patient-reported outcomes improved, as well. A more rigorous study on long-term outcomes is warranted., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Kaitlin M. Carroll, BS, reports relationships with Canary Medical and Orthalign. Andrew D. Pearle, MD, reports relationships with Stryker, Exactech, Engage, Smith and Nephew, and Zimmer. David J. Mayman, MD, reports relationships with Stryker, Imagen, Insight, Smith and Nephew, and Wishbone. Geoffrey Westrich, MD, reports relationships with Stryker, Exactech, and Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals. Seth Jerabek, MD, reports relationships with Stryker and Imagen. Brian Nickel, MD, Laura J. Kleeblad, MD, and Joost Burger, DMed, declare no potential conflicts of interests., (© The Author(s) 2021.)

Background : During the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic, physicians had to improvise and adapt new ways to provide care to patients. Purposes : The purpose of this study was to assess physicians' sentiments regarding telemedicine and its use in orthopedic practices. Methods : We performed a cross-sectional study of attending orthopedic physicians, the majority of whom integrated telemedicine into their practices from March to October 2020. A survey was sent to 517 physicians who had registered for an orthopedics conference. The survey included questions pertaining to various factors regarding telemedicine and each physician's practice. Results : Of the 517 physicians who received the survey, 328 responded, for a 63.4% response rate. Of the 328 respondents, 84.1% did not use telemedicine in their practice prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Even during the pandemic, the physicians most commonly responded that less than 5% of their practice was conducted by telemedicine (n = 103, 31.4%). The second most common response was that more than 20% of visits were done via telemedicine (n = 72, 22.0%); 43.0% of physicians noted that they would not use telemedicine technology in their practice after the pandemic, but 59.1% of physicians would be willing to do annual visits by telemedicine. Ability to examine the patient (2.0 ± 1.0) was rated worse, overall, than either the experience using the technology (3.2 ± 1.0) or the capacity to communicate with the patient (3.6 ± 1.0). Conclusions : Our survey of orthopedic surgeons demonstrates that while the use of telemedicine technology was minimal prior to the pandemic, its use was widely adopted during the pandemic. Nearly half of physicians said that they will continue to use telemedicine., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: David A. Kolin, BA MSc, Kaitlin M. Carroll, BS, and Kevin Plancher, MD, declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Fred Cushner, MD, reports relationships with Acelity, Canary Medical, OrthAlign, and Smith & Nephew, outside the submitted work., (© The Author(s) 2020.)

Background: The early months of the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic in New York City led to a rapid transition of non-essential in-person health care, including outpatient arthroplasty visits, to a telemedicine context. Questions/Purposes: Based on our initial experiences with telemedicine in an outpatient arthroplasty setting, we sought to determine early lessons learned that may be applicable to other providers adopting or expanding telemedicine services. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed by surveying all patients undergoing telemedicine visits with 8 arthroplasty surgeons at 1 orthopedic specialty hospital in New York City from April 8 to May 19, 2020. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze demographic data, satisfaction with the telemedicine visit, and positive and negative takeaways. Results: In all, 164 patients completed the survey. The most common reasons for the telemedicine visit were short-term (less than 6 months), postoperative appointment ( n = 88; 54%), and new patient consultation ( n = 32; 20%). A total of 84 patients (51%) noted a reduction in expenses versus standard outpatient care. Several positive themes emerged from patient feedback, including less anxiety and stress related to traveling ( n = 82; 50%), feeling more at ease in a familiar environment ( n = 54; 33%), and the ability to assess postoperative home environment ( n = 13; 8%). However, patients also expressed concerns about the difficulty addressing symptoms in the absence of an in-person examination ( n = 28; 17%), a decreased sense of interpersonal connection with the physician ( n = 20; 12%), and technical difficulties ( n = 14; 9%). Conclusions: Patients were satisfied with their telemedicine experience during the COVID-19 pandemic; however, we identified several areas amenable to improvement. Further study is warranted., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Drake G. LeBrun, MD, MPH, Christina Malfer, BA, Mallory Wilson, BA, Kaitlin M. Carroll, BA, and Victoria Wang declare that they have no conflicts of interest. David J. Mayman, MD, reports stock or stock options from Imagen, Wishbone, and Insight; stock or stock options and royalties from Orthalign; and personal fees, royalties, and research support from Smith and Nephew, outside the submitted work. Michael B. Cross, MD, reports personal fees from Depuy, Smith and Nephew, and Flexion Therapeutics; personal fees and research support from Exactech; personal fees and stock or stock options from Imagen; personal fees, research support, and stock or stock options from Intellijoint; personal fees and research support from KCI; and stock or stock options from Parvizi Surgical Innovation, outside the submitted work. Michael M. Alexiades, MD, reports personal fees and royalties from DJ Orthopedics, outside the submitted work. Seth A. Jerabek, MD, reports stock or stock options from Imagen, personal fees and research support from Stryker, outside the submitted work. Fred D. Cushner, MD, reports personal fees from Acelity and Smith and Nephew, stock or stock options from Canary Medical, personal fees and stock or stock options from Orthalign, outside the submitted work. Jonathan M. Vigdorchik, MD, reports personal fees and research support from Corin, personal fees and stock or stock options from Intellijoint, and personal fees from Medacta, Motion Insights, and Zimmer, outside the submitted work. Steven B. Haas, MD, reports personal fees from Smith and Nephew, outside the submitted work. Michael P. Ast, MD, reports personal fees from Conformis, Stryker, and Surgical Care Affiliates; personal fees, stock or stock options, and royalties from Orthalign; stock or stock options from OSSO VR; and personal fees and research support from Smith and Nephew, outside the submitted work., (© The Author(s) 2020.)