Naudereh Noori1, Bonnie Chien2, Zijun Zhang3, Jason Schon2, Walter Hembree1, Lew Schon2. 1. MedStar Union Memorial Hospital, Baltimore, MD, USA. 2. Institute for Foot and Ankle Reconstruction, Mercy Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, USA. 3. Center for Orthopedic Innovation, Mercy Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Telemedicine use has become increasingly prevalent over the past year as a result of the
COVID-19 pandemic. To conserve resources and comply with social distancing regulations,
in-person clinical visits have been limited in many regions of the country to only the most
urgent issues.
This shift in care delivery has forced orthopedic surgeons to integrate telemedicine
into their practices, a technological evolution that might otherwise have taken decades.Previous studies have demonstrated that telemedicine can be an economical, safe, and
effective alternative to in-person care. Advantages include decreased costs to the patient,
reduced commute times, and improved access for impaired patients or those who live in rural areas.
Barriers to telemedicine implementation include technical challenges and resistance
to change by both physicians and patients.During the urgent adoption of telemedicine in the early COVID-19 pandemic, a technical
challenge that orthopedic surgeons faced was guiding patients through an effective physical examination.
Within months, orthopedic telemedicine guides were published for patient education
and facilitating the musculoskeletal examination.
These publications, however, included only a short video clip to explain to the
patient how to participate in the examination during a telemedicine visit.In the foot and ankle subspecialty, the closely adjacent complex anatomy compared to other
areas of the body presents unique challenges for physical examination. We sought to address
this difficulty by creating a standardized means for patients to share the most
comprehensive necessary information to assist in evaluation. Here we report on a previsit
technique video we have developed and implemented specific to the foot and ankle at a single
busy academic tertiary care institution to augment the virtual examination and mitigate some
of these challenges.
Preliminary Preparation Steps
Before the virtual visit, patients receive a consent form detailing the visit structure,
associated limitations, and payment. The physician’s office sends new patients the routine
paperwork via e-mail, which includes instructions for returning by regular mail or uploading
securely into their electronic medical record (EMR). If patients have radiographs completed
at an outside imaging center, they are requested to mail the disc to the physician’s office
at least 2 weeks prior to their visit so that it can be uploaded into their chart.
Preparing for the Virtual Visit and Video Exam
To optimize the efficiency and efficacy of the examination portion of the visit for both
patients and providers, we designed and recorded an instructional video that is sent to all
patients by e-mail a minimum of 1 week prior to their appointment. This video consists of a
step-by-step guide on how to take suitable photos and videos of their feet and ankles for
the physical examination portion of their visit. These media files are then directly
uploaded by the patients into their EMR or e-mailed to the physician’s office to be uploaded
for access by the provider before and during the virtual visit. Along with the video,
patients are given a link to test their microphone and camera in advance of the visit to
ensure adequate functionality and positioning.
Previsit Instructional Video Steps
Our instructional video is sent to patients as an mp4 file (Video 1). It begins by having
the patient prepare by removing their shoes and socks and rolling up their pants to expose
the areas of concern (Figure 1).
The patient is next asked to request assistance from another person to take photos of their
feet and ankles using a smartphone. The video demonstrates ideal examples of such photos
being taken for reference. First, the assistant photographs from above to show axial
forefoot, midfoot, and hindfoot alignment (Figure 2). Deformity such as metatarsus adductus, forefoot abduction, pes planus,
and hindfoot varus or valgus can be easily noted in these images.
Figure 1.
Photograph showing feet and ankles.
Figure 2.
Axial foot alignment assessment with photograph taken from above.
Photograph showing feet and ankles.Axial foot alignment assessment with photograph taken from above.Sequential photos of the bottom of each foot are taken to evaluate for the presence of
callus or ulcers that could indicate uneven load distribution from pathologic alignment
(Figure 3).
Figure 3.
Photograph of bottom of feet.
Photograph of bottom of feet.Front and back views of the feet and ankles are then taken to show weightbearing coronal
ankle, hindfoot, midfoot, and forefoot to help evaluate varus or valgus deformity (Figure 4). This process is repeated
while the patient stands on one foot sequentially to assess the flexibility or rigidity of
deformity (Figure 5). To evaluate
posterior tibialis muscle function and ability to achieve heel varus and arch
reconstitution, the assistant takes photos from behind while the patient performs sequential
single leg heel rises (Figure
6).
Figure 4.
Photographs show coronal ankle, hindfoot, midfoot, and forefoot alignment from (A)
front and (B) behind.
Figure 5.
Photograph shows dynamic coronal alignment assessment by single-leg stance.
Figure 6.
Photograph showing arch reconstitution and heel alignment assessment by single-leg heel
rise.
Photographs show coronal ankle, hindfoot, midfoot, and forefoot alignment from (A)
front and (B) behind.Photograph shows dynamic coronal alignment assessment by single-leg stance.Photograph showing arch reconstitution and heel alignment assessment by single-leg heel
rise.Next, to gauge weightbearing sagittal alignment, the assistant takes a photo of the lateral
and medial aspect of each foot and ankle while the patient stands upright. This allows
inspection for subfibular impingement, arch collapse, and greater and lesser toe deformities
including claw, hammer, mallet, and cock-up toes (Figure 7). To assess for ankle range of motion, photos
are then taken of the medial side of each foot and ankle while the patient maximally
dorsiflexes the ankle with the knee flexed (Figure 8). Similarly, photos are taken of the medial
foot and ankle with active great toe plantarflexion and dorsiflexion to allow evaluation of
metatarsophalangeal joint range of motion, important in hallux rigidus and hallux valgus
assessment (Figure 9). This also
allows for assessment of the contributions of the extrinsic tendons on hallux
metatarsophalangeal joint range of motion.
Figure 7.
Photographs for use in weightbearing sagittal plane assessment of the (A) lateral and
(B) medial foot and ankle.
figure 8.
Photograph showing ankle range of motion assessment with knee flexion and ankle
dorsiflexion.
Figure 9.
Photographs for use in assessment of hallux metatarsophalangeal joint range of motion
in equinus (A) with and (B) without the effect of extrinsic muscles.
Photographs for use in weightbearing sagittal plane assessment of the (A) lateral and
(B) medial foot and ankle.Photograph showing ankle range of motion assessment with knee flexion and ankle
dorsiflexion.Photographs for use in assessment of hallux metatarsophalangeal joint range of motion
in equinus (A) with and (B) without the effect of extrinsic muscles.A dynamic gait assessment is then performed by having the assistant take a video from the
front and back of the patient walking (Figure 10) and again from the front and back with the patient toe walking (Figure 11). This provides an
assessment of motor function with the presence of antigravity ankle and toe dorsiflexion and
plantarflexion, as well as posterior tibialis muscle function through arch maintenance. The
flexibility of planovalgus and cavovarus deformity can be studied through these images, and
balance and proprioception are also appreciated.
Figure 10.
Screenshot of video for dynamic gait assessment from the (A) front and (B) back.
Figure 11.
Screenshot of video for dynamic toe walking gait assessment from the (A) front and (B)
back.
Screenshot of video for dynamic gait assessment from the (A) front and (B) back.Screenshot of video for dynamic toe walking gait assessment from the (A) front and (B)
back.A video is then taken from the lateral side with the patient doing double leg squats to
assess ankle range of motion, particularly dorsiflexion (Figure 12).
Figure 12.
Screenshot of video showing double-leg squat for ankle dorsiflexion assessment.
Screenshot of video showing double-leg squat for ankle dorsiflexion assessment.To simulate gastrocnemius soleus, posterior tibialis, and peroneus brevis strength
assessment, the patient is next instructed to roll up a towel and wrap it around the
junction of the midfoot and forefoot. A video is taken of the patient plantarflexing,
inverting, and everting each foot against the resistance from pulling the towel while in a
seated position (Figure 13).
Figure 13.
Screenshot of video for power assessment against towel resistance of (A)
plantarflexion, (B) inversion, and (C) eversion.
Screenshot of video for power assessment against towel resistance of (A)
plantarflexion, (B) inversion, and (C) eversion.Finally, to evaluate wear pattern, which has implications for foot load distribution
related to deformity, photos are obtained from behind and on the bottom of their most
commonly worn shoes.Patients record this documentation using a cell phone, producing JPEG files for the photos
and MP4 files for the videos. Patients are also instructed to take a picture of any recent
radiographs to ensure they are available for physician review in the EMR, in the event the
patient is unable to mail an imaging disc prior to the visit.
Preliminary Experience With the Previsit Instructional Video
Our preappointment instructional video has been effective to methodically replicate the
most important aspects of an in-person foot and ankle evaluation. Both physicians and
patients appear to benefit from the tutorial video by having more time during the
telemedicine visit to focus on history, assessment, and plan. Patients are more actively
involved in the clinical data collection process because they are educated on what to expect
and how to best prepare and participate in telemedicine visits. Moreover, having a set of
systematic and detailed photos and recordings of the patient’s foot and ankle beforehand
better focuses interaction and discussion with the patient during the telemedicine
encounter.With 7 months and 28 patients of experience integrating this previsit video into each
telemedicine visit, several important benefits have been noted. Valuable clinical time is
conserved by not spending the start of each visit teaching the patient or a family member on
how to set up and optimize image capture. Instead, by having documentation of the relevant,
important physical examination features available for review in advance, the visit is more
focused on discussing the differential diagnoses and treatment options in greater detail.
The patient photos and recordings are also conveniently saved as part of the patient’s EMR
for later review and reference during subsequent medical record documentation.This tutorial video, however, does not fully compensate for the inherent disadvantages of
telemedicine for musculoskeletal examination in orthopedic surgery. This includes the
inability to accurately evaluate motor strength, sensation, vascular status via pulses, and
range of motion or to precisely localize painful areas. We do routinely supplement this
video by asking the patient to perform additional maneuvers during the virtual visit as
needed based on individual presentation and specific pathology.
Future Directions
It is likely there will continue to be a role for telemedicine beyond the pandemic.
Advantages of telemedicine as an alternative to in-person visits have already been shown for
patients with decreased mobility due to lower extremity pathology, those with long commutes
to clinic, and those in lower socioeconomic levels.
Development of standardized protocols for both the patient and provider to prepare
before and during the actual telemedicine encounter is necessary to optimize visit
efficiency and accuracy. Future directions include comparison of physician and patient
satisfaction and outcomes incorporating previsit physical examination instructional videos
such as this one into telemedicine visits with standard in-person visits.
Summary
Physical examination plays a critical role in diagnosis and treatment in the orthopedic
foot and ankle subspecialty. More research is needed to discern how best to utilize virtual
modalities as they become more commonplace, not just from the imposition from the COVID
pandemic but also from the standpoint of patient convenience and time efficiency. Here we
have described our creation of a previsit educational video to guide and engage patients on
acquiring invaluable physical examination information for the orthopedic foot and ankle
telemedicine encounter.Click here for additional data file.Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-fao-10.1177_24730114211019371 for Previsit Patient
Instructional Video for the Virtual Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Examination by Naudereh
Noori, Bonnie Chien, Zijun Zhang, Jason Schon, Walter Hembree and Lew Schon in Foot &
Ankle Orthopaedics
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: Liam T Kane; Ocean Thakar; Grant Jamgochian; Mark D Lazarus; Joseph A Abboud; Surena Namdari; John G Horneff Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Alexander E Loeb; Sandesh S Rao; James R Ficke; Carol D Morris; Lee H Riley; Adam S Levin Journal: J Am Acad Orthop Surg Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 3.020
Authors: Rachel Blue; Andrew I Yang; Cecilia Zhou; Emma De Ravin; Clare W Teng; Gabriel R Arguelles; Vincent Huang; Connor Wathen; Stephen P Miranda; Paul Marcotte; Neil R Malhotra; William C Welch; John Y K Lee Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2020-05-16 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: Edward R Laskowski; Shelby E Johnson; Randy A Shelerud; Jason A Lee; Amy E Rabatin; Sherilyn W Driscoll; Brittany J Moore; Michael C Wainberg; Carmen M Terzic Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 7.616