31
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Telemedicine in the Era of COVID-19 : The Virtual Orthopaedic Examination

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Abstract: With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the shifting of clinical care to telemedicine visits has been hastened. Because of current limitations in resources, many elective surgeons have been forced to venture into utilizing telemedicine, in which the standards for orthopaedic examinations have not previously been fully developed. We report our experience with protocols and methods to standardize these visits to maximize the benefit and efficiency of the virtual orthopaedic examination. At the time of scheduling, patients are asked to prepare for their virtual visit and are given a checklist. In addition to confirming audiovisual capabilities prior to the visit, patients are given specific instructions on camera positioning, body positioning, setting, and attire to improve the efficiency of the visit. During the examination, digital tools can be utilized as needed. In the setting of outpatient injury evaluations, a systematic virtual examination can aid in triaging and managing common musculoskeletal conditions. With the rapid incorporation of telehealth visits, as well as the unknown future with regard to the pandemic, the utilization and capabilities of telemedicine will continue to expand. Future directions include the development of validated, modified examination techniques and new technology that will allow for improved interactive physical examinations, as we rapidly move forward into the realm of telemedicine due to unexpected necessity.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Patient reported outcomes with remote orthopaedic consultations by telemedicine: A randomised controlled trial.

          Decentralised services through outreach clinics or modern technology reduce patient travel time and cost to society. Telemedicine consultation through videoconference is one such modality. Here, we compared patient-reported health outcomes and satisfaction between video-assisted remote and standard face-to-face orthopaedic consultations.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Evidence of Benefit of Telerehabitation After Orthopedic Surgery: A Systematic Review

            Background In addition to traditional physiotherapy, studies based on telerehabilitation programs have published the results of effectiveness, validity, noninferiority, and important advantages in some neurological, cognitive, and musculoskeletal disorders, providing an opportunity to define new social policies and interventions. Objectives The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the effects of telerehabilitation after surgical procedures on orthopedic conditions as well as to describe how interventions are designed and to determine whether telerehabilitation is comparable with conventional methods of delivery. This systematic review summarizes the levels of evidence and grades of recommendation regarding telerehabilitation intervention (synchronous or asynchronous provided via the telerehabilitation medium, either in conjunction with, or in isolation of, other treatment interventions) after surgical procedures on orthopedic conditions. Methods Study quality was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scores and grade of recommendation following the recommendation of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Results We found 3 studies with PEDro scores between 6 and 8, which is considered as level 1 evidence (good; 20% [3/15]), 4 studies with a score of 5, which is considered as level 2 evidence (acceptable; 27% [4/15]), and the remaining 8 studies had scores of 4 or less, which is considered (poor; 53% [8/15]). A total of 1316 participants received telerehabilitation intervention in the selected studies, where knee and hip replacement were 75% of all the studies. Strong and moderate grades of evidence (grade of recommendation A–B) were found in knee and hip replacement interventions. Studies on the upper limb were 25% of the studies, but only 1 study presented a moderate grade of evidence (grade of recommendation B) and the rest were of poor methodological quality with weak evidence (grade of recommendation C). Conclusions Conclusive evidence on the efficacy of telerehabilitation for treatment after an orthopedic surgery, regardless of pathology, was not obtained. We found strong evidence in favor of telerehabilitation in patients following total knee and hip arthroplasty and limited evidence in the upper limb interventions (moderate and weak evidence). Future research needs to be more extensive and conclusive. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first attempt at evaluating the quality of telerehabilitation intervention research after surgical procedures on orthopedic conditions in a systematic review. Clinical messages and future research recommendations are included in the review.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Diagnostic accuracy of a new clinical test (the Thessaly test) for early detection of meniscal tears.

              Clinical tests used for the detection of meniscal tears in the knee do not present acceptable diagnostic sensitivity and specificity values. Diagnostic accuracy is improved by arthroscopic evaluation or magnetic resonance imaging studies. The objective of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a new dynamic clinical examination test for the detection of meniscal tears. Two hundred and thirteen symptomatic patients with knee injuries who were examined clinically, had magnetic resonance imaging studies performed, and underwent arthroscopic surgery and 197 asymptomatic volunteers who were examined clinically and had magnetic resonance imaging studies done of their normal knees were included in this study. For clinical examination, the medial and lateral joint-line tenderness test, the McMurray test, the Apley compression and distraction test, the Thessaly test at 5 degrees of knee flexion, and the Thessaly test at 20 degrees of knee flexion were used. For all clinical tests, the sensitivity, specificity, false-positive, false-negative, and diagnostic accuracy rates were calculated and compared with the arthroscopic and magnetic resonance imaging data for the test subjects and the magnetic resonance imaging data for the control population. The Thessaly test at 20 degrees of knee flexion had a high diagnostic accuracy rate of 94% in the detection of tears of the medial meniscus and 96% in the detection of tears of the lateral meniscus, and it had a low rate of false-positive and false-negative recordings. Other traditional clinical examination tests, with the exception of joint-line tenderness, which presented a diagnostic accuracy rate of 89% in the detection of lateral meniscal tears, showed inferior rates. The Thessaly test at 20 degrees of knee flexion can be used effectively as a first-line clinical screening test for meniscal tears, reducing the need for and the cost of modern magnetic resonance imaging methods.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery
                The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery
                Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
                0021-9355
                2020
                April 2020
                : 1
                Article
                10.2106/JBJS.20.00609
                f467edc1-c3c9-4883-8c7c-e6cfbbc1cba1
                © 2020
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article