Telemedicine in Nerve Surgery: An Effective Method to Determine Indications for Surgery.

IF 1.5 Q3 SURGERY
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open Pub Date : 2025-06-26 eCollection Date: 2025-06-01 DOI:10.1097/GOX.0000000000006892
Noah S Llaneras, Ruby L Taylor, Jonah P M Orr, Rachel Alessio, Carolyn Carper, Brendan M Patterson, Susan E Mackinnon
{"title":"Telemedicine in Nerve Surgery: An Effective Method to Determine Indications for Surgery.","authors":"Noah S Llaneras, Ruby L Taylor, Jonah P M Orr, Rachel Alessio, Carolyn Carper, Brendan M Patterson, Susan E Mackinnon","doi":"10.1097/GOX.0000000000006892","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of telemedicine for surgical consultations. Although patient satisfaction has been well documented, limited research exists regarding telemedicine's effectiveness in determining the ability to indicate for surgical care compared with in-office visits. We conducted a retrospective review comparing surgical decision-making via telemedicine versus in-person consultations, hypothesizing that in-office visits would be more effective in establishing a surgical plan than telemedicine.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective review of the medical records of all new patients presenting to the senior author's nerve surgery clinic at a high-volume quaternary referral center between June 2020 and January 2023 was performed. Surgical consultations were categorized as (1) surgery recommended, (2) surgery not recommended, (3) further screening required, or (4) surgery declined. The Fisher exact test compared the distribution of these categories between consultation types and the proportion of patients who underwent surgery after an initial recommendation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 809 patients, 283 (35%) had in-person and 526 (65%) had telemedicine consultations. Surgery was recommended in 49.5% of in-person consultations compared with 38% of telemedicine consultations (<i>P</i> = 0.03). Among those recommended for surgery at the initial visit, 77.9% of in-person and 77.8% of telemedicine patients ultimately underwent surgery (<i>P</i> = 0.10). Of the telemedicine patients subsequently seen in the office and offered surgery, 84.5% ultimately underwent that surgery.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings suggest that telemedicine and in-office visits are equally effective in establishing a surgical plan, suggesting that the expansion of telemedicine could be considered for a broader geographic patient base.</p>","PeriodicalId":20149,"journal":{"name":"Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open","volume":"13 6","pages":"e6892"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12200210/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000006892","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of telemedicine for surgical consultations. Although patient satisfaction has been well documented, limited research exists regarding telemedicine's effectiveness in determining the ability to indicate for surgical care compared with in-office visits. We conducted a retrospective review comparing surgical decision-making via telemedicine versus in-person consultations, hypothesizing that in-office visits would be more effective in establishing a surgical plan than telemedicine.

Methods: A retrospective review of the medical records of all new patients presenting to the senior author's nerve surgery clinic at a high-volume quaternary referral center between June 2020 and January 2023 was performed. Surgical consultations were categorized as (1) surgery recommended, (2) surgery not recommended, (3) further screening required, or (4) surgery declined. The Fisher exact test compared the distribution of these categories between consultation types and the proportion of patients who underwent surgery after an initial recommendation.

Results: Of the 809 patients, 283 (35%) had in-person and 526 (65%) had telemedicine consultations. Surgery was recommended in 49.5% of in-person consultations compared with 38% of telemedicine consultations (P = 0.03). Among those recommended for surgery at the initial visit, 77.9% of in-person and 77.8% of telemedicine patients ultimately underwent surgery (P = 0.10). Of the telemedicine patients subsequently seen in the office and offered surgery, 84.5% ultimately underwent that surgery.

Conclusions: Our findings suggest that telemedicine and in-office visits are equally effective in establishing a surgical plan, suggesting that the expansion of telemedicine could be considered for a broader geographic patient base.

神经外科远程医疗:确定手术指征的有效方法。
背景:2019冠状病毒病大流行加速了远程医疗在外科会诊中的应用。尽管患者满意度已得到充分的记录,但与办公室就诊相比,远程医疗在确定外科护理指示能力方面的有效性方面的研究有限。我们进行了一项回顾性研究,比较了通过远程医疗和面对面咨询制定手术决策,并假设在办公室就诊比远程医疗更有效地制定手术计划。方法:回顾性分析2020年6月至2023年1月期间在高级作者的高容量四级转诊中心神经外科诊所就诊的所有新患者的医疗记录。手术咨询被分类为(1)推荐手术,(2)不推荐手术,(3)需要进一步筛查,或(4)拒绝手术。Fisher精确检验比较了这些类别在咨询类型之间的分布以及在初步推荐后接受手术的患者比例。结果:809例患者中,当面会诊283例(35%),远程会诊526例(65%)。49.5%的面对面咨询推荐手术,而38%的远程医疗咨询推荐手术(P = 0.03)。在初次就诊时推荐手术的患者中,77.9%的面对面和77.8%的远程医疗患者最终接受了手术(P = 0.10)。在随后到办公室就诊并接受手术的远程医疗患者中,84.5%最终接受了手术。结论:我们的研究结果表明,远程医疗和上门就诊在制定手术计划方面同样有效,这表明可以考虑将远程医疗扩展到更广泛的患者群体。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
13.30%
发文量
1584
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open is an open access, peer reviewed, international journal focusing on global plastic and reconstructive surgery.Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open publishes on all areas of plastic and reconstructive surgery, including basic science/experimental studies pertinent to the field and also clinical articles on such topics as: breast reconstruction, head and neck surgery, pediatric and craniofacial surgery, hand and microsurgery, wound healing, and cosmetic and aesthetic surgery. Clinical studies, experimental articles, ideas and innovations, and techniques and case reports are all welcome article types. Manuscript submission is open to all surgeons, researchers, and other health care providers world-wide who wish to communicate their research results on topics related to plastic and reconstructive surgery. Furthermore, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open, a complimentary journal to Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, provides an open access venue for the publication of those research studies sponsored by private and public funding agencies that require open access publication of study results. Its mission is to disseminate high quality, peer reviewed research in plastic and reconstructive surgery to the widest possible global audience, through an open access platform. As an open access journal, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open offers its content for free to any viewer. Authors of articles retain their copyright to the materials published. Additionally, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open provides rapid review and publication of accepted papers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信