INTRODUCTION: Telemedicine is the delivery of healthcare across a distance using some form of communication technology. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to increased adoption of telemedicine with national orthopaedic governing bodies advocating its use, as evidence suggests that social distancing maybe necessary until 2022. This systematic review aims to explore evidence for telemedicine in orthopaedics to determine its advantages, validity, effectiveness and utilisation. METHODS: Databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and CINAHL were systematically searched and articles were included if they involved any form of telephone or video consultation in an orthopaedic population. Findings were synthesised into four themes: patient/clinician satisfaction, accuracy and validity of examination, safety and patient outcomes and cost effectiveness. Quality assessment was undertaken using Cochrane and Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tools. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included consisting of nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Studies revealed high patient satisfaction with telemedicine for convenience, less waiting and travelling time. Telemedicine was cost effective particularly if patients had to travel long distances, required hospital transport or time off work. No clinically significant differences were found in patient examination nor measurement of patient-reported outcome measures. Telemedicine was reported to be a safe method of consultation. DISCUSSION: Evidence suggests that telemedicine in orthopaedics can be safe, cost effective, valid in clinical assessment and with high patient/clinician satisfaction. However, more high-quality RCTs are required to elucidate long-term outcomes. This systematic review presents up-to-date evidence on the use of telemedicine and provides data for organisations considering its use during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.
INTRODUCTION: Telemedicine is the delivery of healthcare across a distance using some form of communication technology. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to increased adoption of telemedicine with national orthopaedic governing bodies advocating its use, as evidence suggests that social distancing maybe necessary until 2022. This systematic review aims to explore evidence for telemedicine in orthopaedics to determine its advantages, validity, effectiveness and utilisation. METHODS: Databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and CINAHL were systematically searched and articles were included if they involved any form of telephone or video consultation in an orthopaedic population. Findings were synthesised into four themes: patient/clinician satisfaction, accuracy and validity of examination, safety and patient outcomes and cost effectiveness. Quality assessment was undertaken using Cochrane and Joanna Briggs Institute appraisal tools. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included consisting of nine randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Studies revealed high patient satisfaction with telemedicine for convenience, less waiting and travelling time. Telemedicine was cost effective particularly if patients had to travel long distances, required hospital transport or time off work. No clinically significant differences were found in patient examination nor measurement of patient-reported outcome measures. Telemedicine was reported to be a safe method of consultation. DISCUSSION: Evidence suggests that telemedicine in orthopaedics can be safe, cost effective, valid in clinical assessment and with high patient/clinician satisfaction. However, more high-quality RCTs are required to elucidate long-term outcomes. This systematic review presents up-to-date evidence on the use of telemedicine and provides data for organisations considering its use during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.
Authors: Vasanth Sathiyakumar; Jordan C Apfeld; William T Obremskey; Rachel V Thakore; Manish K Sethi Journal: J Orthop Trauma Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Jonathan A C Sterne; Jelena Savović; Matthew J Page; Roy G Elbers; Natalie S Blencowe; Isabelle Boutron; Christopher J Cates; Hung-Yuan Cheng; Mark S Corbett; Sandra M Eldridge; Jonathan R Emberson; Miguel A Hernán; Sally Hopewell; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Daniela R Junqueira; Peter Jüni; Jamie J Kirkham; Toby Lasserson; Tianjing Li; Alexandra McAleenan; Barnaby C Reeves; Sasha Shepperd; Ian Shrier; Lesley A Stewart; Kate Tilling; Ian R White; Penny F Whiting; Julian P T Higgins Journal: BMJ Date: 2019-08-28
Authors: Russell R Russo; Matthew B Burn; Sabir K Ismaily; Brayden J Gerrie; Shuyang Han; Jerry Alexander; Christopher Lenherr; Philip C Noble; Joshua D Harris; Patrick C McCulloch Journal: J Orthop Sci Date: 2017-12-20 Impact factor: 1.601
Authors: Krishna S Vyas; H Rhodes Hambrick; Afaaf Shakir; Shane D Morrison; Duy C Tran; Keon Pearson; Henry C Vasconez; Samir Mardini; Amanda A Gosman; Marek Dobke; Mark S Granick Journal: Ann Plast Surg Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 1.539
Authors: Assem A Sultan; Alexander J Acuña; Linsen T Samuel; Jacob M Rabin; Daniel Grits; David P Gurd; Thomas E Kuivila; Ryan C Goodwin Journal: J Pediatr Orthop Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 2.324
Authors: Sandesh S Rao; Alexander E Loeb; Raj M Amin; Gregory J Golladay; Adam S Levin; Savyasachi C Thakkar Journal: Arthroplast Today Date: 2020-04-23