The use of telemedicine in orthopaedics can provide high-quality orthopaedic services to patients in remote areas. Tele-orthopaedics is widely acknowledged for decreasing travel, time and cost, increasing accessibility and quality of care. In the absence of a comprehensive review on tele-orthopaedics applications and services, here, we systematically identify and classify the tele-orthopaedic applications and services, and provide an overview of the trends in the field.
Methods
In this study, a systematic mapping was conducted to answer six research questions, we searched the databases Scopus, PubMed, IEEE Digital Library and Web of Science up to 2019. Consequently, 77 papers were screened and selected on the basis of specific inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Results
We found that mobile-based teleconsultation was mostly asynchronous, while non-mobile teleconsultation was synchronous. The results showed that the physician–patient relationship was more common than other interactions, such as physician–physician and physician–robot interactions. In addition, more than half of the services provided by tele-orthopaedics have been used for orthopaedic diseases/traumas in which joint replacement and fracture reduction have been the most important orthopaedic procedures. It has been noted that more attention has been paid to tele-orthopaedics in developed countries such as the USA, Australia, Canada and Finland.
Discussion
Telemonitoring (teleconsultation and telemetry) and telesurgery (telerobotics and telementoring) were found to be the two major forms of tele-orthopaedics. Mobile phones were used asynchronously in most of the teleconsultations. The development of different applications may result in the use of multiple smartphones applications in real-time teleconsultation. The use of smartphones is expected to increase in the near future.
JamesSLAbateDAbateKH, et al.
Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet2018;
392: 1789–1858.
4.
Van DykL.A review of telehealth service implementation frameworks. Int J Environ Res Public Health2014;
11: 1279–1298.
MitchellJ.From telehealth to e-health: the unstoppable rise of e-health.
Canberra, Australia:
Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, 1999.
7.
World Health Organization. International Telecommunication Union. National eHealth strategy toolkit.
Geneva:
International Telecommunication Union.
8.
SoodSMbarikaVJugooS, et al.
What is telemedicine? A collection of 104 peer-reviewed perspectives and theoretical underpinnings. Telemed J E Health2007;
13: 573–590.
9.
BashshurRLBashshurRShannonGW, et al. Telemedicine: theory and practice.
Springfield, IL:
Charles C. Thomas, 1997.
10.
EvansCRMedinaMGDwyerAM.Telemedicine and telerobotics: from science fiction to reality. Updat Surg2018;
70: 357–362.
11.
FieldMJGrigsbyJ.Telemedicine and remote patient monitoring. JAMA2002;
288: 423–425.
12.
ClearyMPetersEKeaneL.Draft report on EU state of play on patient access on eHealth data.
Brussels:
Joint Action to Support the eHealth Network.
13.
World Health Organization. Information technology in support of health care.
Geneva:
World Health Organization, 2012.
14.
RashediEBaratiE.Telemedicine technologies and effectiveness: a review article. Pajouhan Sci J2013;
11: 1–8.
15.
BuvikABuggeEKnutsenG, et al.
Quality of care for remote orthopaedic consultations using telemedicine: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res2016;
16: 483.
16.
YahandaATMarinoNEBarronJ, et al.
Patient engagement and cost savings achieved by automated telemonitoring systems designed to prevent and identify surgical site infections after joint replacement. Telemed J E Health2019;
25: 143–151.
17.
BuvikABergmoTSBuggeE, et al.
Cost-effectiveness of telemedicine in remote orthopedic consultations: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res2019;
21: e11330.
18.
OhinmaaAVuolioSHaukipuroK, et al.
A cost-minimization analysis of orthopaedic consultations using videoconferencing in comparison with conventional consulting. J Telemed Telecare2002;
8: 283–289.
19.
CafferyLJTaylorMNorthJB, et al.
Tele-orthopaedics: a snapshot of services in Australia. J Telemed Telecare2017;
23: 835–841.
20.
HadjinicolaouMGNilavalanRItagakiT, et al.
Emergency TeleOrthoPaedics m-health system for wireless communication links. IET Commun2009;
3: 1284–1296.
21.
CotaATarchalaMParent-HarveyC, et al.
Review of 5.5 years’ experience using e-mail-based telemedicine to deliver orthopedic care to remote communities. Telemed J E Health2017;
23: 37–40.
22.
KitchenhamBPearl BreretonOBudgenD, et al.
Systematic literature reviews in software engineering – a systematic literature review. Inf Softw Technol2009;
51: 7–15.
23.
GarousiVMesbahABetin-CanA, et al.
A systematic mapping study of web application testing. Inf Softw Technol2013;
55: 1374–1396.
24.
Da Mota Silveira NetoPADo Carmo MachadoIMcGregorJD, et al.
A systematic mapping study of software product lines testing. Inf Softw Technol2011;
53: 407–423.
25.
PetersenKVakkalankaSKuzniarzL.Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: an update. Inf Softw Technol2015;
64: 1–18.
26.
PetersenKFeldtRMujtabaS, et al. Systematic mapping studies in software engineering. In: EASE ’08: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, Italy, 26–27 June 2008, pp.68–77.
27.
BertaniALaunayFCandoniP, et al.
Teleconsultation in paediatric orthopaedics in Djibouti: evaluation of response performance. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res2012;
98: 803–807.
28.
BlankELappanCBelmontJr PJ, et al.
Early analysis of the United States Army’s telemedicine orthopaedic consultation program. J Surg Orthop Adv2011;
20: 50–55.
29.
LamminenHNevalainenJAlhoA, et al.
Experimental telemedicine in orthopaedics. J Telemed Telecare1996;
2: 170–173.
30.
AnthonyCAVolkmarAShahAS, et al.
Communication with orthopedic trauma patients via an automated mobile phone messaging robot. Telemed J E Health2018;
24: 504–509.
31.
YelinEWeinsteinSKingT.An update on the burden of musculoskeletal diseases in the US. Semin Arthritis Rheum2019;
49: 1–2.
RamkumarPNHaeberleHSNavarroSM, et al.
Mobile technology and telemedicine for shoulder range of motion: validation of a motion-based machine-learning software development kit. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2018;
27: 1198–1204.
37.
AkterSD’AmbraJRayP. User perceived service quality of m-Health services in developing countries. In: 18th European Conference on Information Systems. Pretoria, South Africa: University of Pretoria, pp.1–12.
38.
PereiraLCRwakabayizaSLécureuxE, et al.
Reliability of the knee smartphone-application goniometer in the acute orthopedic setting. J Knee Surg2017;
30: 223–230.
39.
VerhoevenFVan Gemert-PijnenLDijkstraK, et al.
The contribution of teleconsultation and videoconferencing to diabetes care: a systematic literature review. J Med Internet Res2007;
9: e37.
40.
KernJ.Evaluation of teleconsultation systems. Int J Med Inf2006;
75: 330–334.
41.
VerhoevenFTanja-DijkstraKNijlandN, et al.
Asynchronous and synchronous teleconsultation for diabetes care: a systematic literature review. J Diabetes Sci Technol2010;
4: 666–684.
42.
MeystreS.The current state of telemonitoring: a comment on the literature. Telemed J E Health2005;
11: 63–69.
43.
ScheperHDerogeeRMahdadR, et al.
A mobile app for postoperative wound care after arthroplasty: ease of use and perceived usefulness. Int J Med Inf2019;
129: 75–80.
44.
VladzymyrskyyAV.Our experience with telemedicine in traumatology and orthopedics. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg2004;
10: 189–191.
45.
BellKWarnickENicholsonK, et al.
Patient adoption and utilization of a web-based and mobile-based portal for collecting outcomes after elective orthopedic surgery. Am J Med Qual2018;
33: 649–656.
46.
ZhangJDushajKRasquinhaVJ, et al.
Monitoring surgical incision sites in orthopedic patients using an online physician–patient messaging platform. J Arthroplasty2019;
34: 1897–1900.
47.
McKerrowMNorthJ.Clavicle fracture management: a comparison of a tertiary hospital and rural telehealth sites. J Telemed Telecare2017;
23: 856–860.
48.
WestphalRWinkelbachSGöslingT, et al.
A surgical telemanipulator for femur shaft fracture reduction. Int J Med Robot2006;
2: 238–250.
49.
SunXZhuQWangX, et al. A remote control robotic surgical system for femur shaft fracture reduction. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetrics (ROBIO), Zhuhai, 2015, pp.1649–1653.
50.
KongMXDuZJSunLN, et al. A robot-assisted orthopedic telesurgery system. In: 27th Annual International Conference of the IEEE and Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2005, pp.97–101.
51.
KasaharaYKawanaHUsudaS, et al.
Telerobotic-assisted bone-drilling system using bilateral control with feed operation scaling and cutting force scaling. Int J Med Robot2012;
8: 221–229.
52.
TalbotMHarveyEJBerryGK, et al.
A pilot study of surgical telementoring for leg fasciotomy. J R Army Med Corps2018;
164: 83–86.
53.
PonceBAJenningsJKClayTB, et al.
Telementoring: use of augmented reality in orthopaedic education: AAOS exhibit selection. J Bone Joint Surg Am2014;
96: e84.
54.
CarboneMFreschiCMascioliS, et al. A wearable augmented reality platform for telemedicine. In: DePaolis L and Mongeli A (eds) Augmented Reality, Virtual Reality, and Computer Graphics. AVR 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 9769. Cham: Springer, 2016.
55.
PonceBABrabstonEWZuS, et al.
Telemedicine with mobile devices and augmented reality for early postoperative care. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc2016;
2016: 4411–4414.
56.
MoroCŠtrombergaZRaikosA, et al.
The effectiveness of virtual and augmented reality in health sciences and medical anatomy. Anat Sci Educ2017;
10: 549–559.
57.
NavabNBlumTWangL, et al.
First deployments of augmented reality in operating rooms. Computer2012;
45: 48–55.
58.
ArgentRSlevinPBevilacquaA, et al.
Wearable sensor-based exercise biofeedback for orthopaedic rehabilitation: a mixed methods user evaluation of a prototype system. Sensors2019;
19: 432.
59.
AzimifarFHassaniKHossein SavehA, et al.
A new template and teleoperation system for human-guided spine surgery. Artif Organs2019;
43: 424–434.
60.
SilvaMDelfosseEMAceves-MartinB, et al.
Telehealth: a novel approach for the treatment of nondisplaced pediatric elbow fractures. J Pediatr Orthop B2019;
28: 542–548.
61.
FodorCRotariuCAndruseacG, et al. Device for telemonitoring of spine flexion during cervical kyphosis treatment. In: 2019 11th International Symposium on Advanced Topics in Electrical Engineering (ATEE). IEEE, 2019, pp.1–4.
62.
BuvikABuggeEKnutsenG, et al.
Patient reported outcomes with remote orthopaedic consultations by telemedicine: a randomised controlled trial. J Telemed Telecare2019;
25: 451–459.
63.
AshapkinaMSAlpatovAVSablinaVA, et al. Remote monitoring of rehabilitation of patients of traumatology and orthopedic profile. In: 2019 8th Mediterranean Conference on Embedded Computing (MECO). IEEE, 2019, pp.1–4.
64.
PradaCIzquierdoNTraipeR, et al.
Results of a new telemedicine strategy in traumatology and orthopedics.Telemed J E Health. Epub ahead of print 9 July 2019. DOI: 10.1089/tmj.2019.0090.
65.
KayaalpMEAgresANReichmannJ, et al.
Validation of a novel device for the knee monitoring of orthopaedic patients. Sensors2019;
19: 5193.
66.
ChughtaiMShahNVSultanAA, et al.
The role of prehabilitation with a telerehabilitation system prior to total knee arthroplasty.Ann Transl Med2019;
7: 68.
67.
FenelonCMurphyEPGalbraithJG, et al.
Telesurveillance: exploring the use of mobile phone imaging in the follow-up of orthopedic patients with hand trauma. Telemed J E Health2019;
25: 1244–1249.
68.
ScottKLSkotakCMRenfreeKJ.Remote assessment of wrist range of motion: inter- and intra-observer agreement of provider estimation and direct measurement with photographs and tracings. J Hand Surg2019;
44: 954–965.
69.
SinhaNCornellMWheatleyB, et al.
Looking through a different lens: patient satisfaction with telemedicine in delivering pediatric fracture care.J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev2019;
3: e100.
70.
RosnerBIGottliebMAndersonWN.Effectiveness of an automated digital remote guidance and telemonitoring platform on costs, readmissions, and complications after hip and knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty2018;
33: 988–996.e4.
71.
Pastora-BernalJMMartín-ValeroRBarón-LópezFJ, et al.
Telerehabilitation after arthroscopic subacromial decompression is effective and not inferior to standard practice: preliminary results. J Telemed Telecare2018;
24: 428–433.
72.
Martinez-RicoSLizaur-UtrillaASebastia-ForcadaE, et al.
The impact of a phone assistance nursing program on adherence to home exercises and final outcomes in patients who underwent shoulder instability surgery: a randomized controlled study. Orthop Nurs2018;
37: 372–378.
73.
CottrellMAHillAJO’LearySP, et al.
Patients are willing to use telehealth for the multidisciplinary management of chronic musculoskeletal conditions: a cross-sectional survey. J Telemed Telecare2018;
24: 445–452.
74.
CottrellMAO’LearySPSwete-KellyP, et al.
Agreement between telehealth and in-person assessment of patients with chronic musculoskeletal conditions presenting to an advanced-practice physiotherapy screening clinic. Musculoskelet Sci Pract2018;
38: 99–105.
75.
DavidovitchRIAnoushiravaniAAFengJE, et al.
Home health services are not required for select total hip arthroplasty candidates: assessment and supplementation with an electronic recovery application. J Arthroplasty2018;
33: S49–S55.
76.
BitsakiMKoutrasGHeepH, et al.
Cost-effective mobile-based healthcare system for managing total joint arthroplasty follow-up. Healthc Inform Res2017;
23: 67–73.
77.
TsvyakhAIHospodarskyyAJ.Telerehabilitation of patients with injuries of the lower extremities. Telemed J E Health2017;
23: 1011–1015.
78.
RobinsonPMSimFLatimerM, et al.
Paediatric fracture clinic re-design: incorporating a virtual fracture clinic. Injury2017;
48: 2101–2105.
79.
RichardsonBRTruterPBlumkeR, et al.
Physiotherapy assessment and diagnosis of musculoskeletal disorders of the knee via telerehabilitation. J Telemed Telecare2017;
23: 88–95.
80.
LauAYPiperKBokorD, et al.
Challenges during implementation of a patient-facing mobile app for surgical rehabilitation: feasibility study. JMIR Hum Factors2017;
4: e31.
81.
CottrellMAHillAJO’LearySP, et al.
Service provider perceptions of telerehabilitation as an additional service delivery option within an Australian neurosurgical and orthopaedic physiotherapy screening clinic: a qualitative study. Musculoskelet Sci Pract2017;
32: 7–16.
82.
MoffetHTousignantMNadeauS, et al.
Patient satisfaction with in-home telerehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty: results from a randomized controlled trial. Telemed J E Health2017;
23: 80–87.
83.
FangYChengXLiF, et al. Development of a smart insole device for lower limb postoperative rehabilitation training. In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetrics, ROBIO 2017, Macau, China, 5–8 December 2017, pp.2699–2703.
84.
KrumsvikOABabicA.Designing a safety reporting smartphone application to improve patient safety after total hip arthroplasty. Stud Health Technol Inform2017;
238: 84–87.
85.
DebonoBBousquetPSabatierP, et al.
Postoperative monitoring with a mobile application after ambulatory lumbar discectomy: an effective tool for spine surgeons. Eur Spine J2016;
25: 3536–3542.
86.
TillesJShaporevAReukovV. mHealth musculoskeletal applications: Bluetooth low energy devices and Android. In: 32nd Southern Biomedical Engineering Conference (SBEC), Shreveport, LA, 2016, pp.111–112.
87.
SathiyakumarVApfeldJCObremskeyWT, et al.
Prospective randomized controlled trial using telemedicine for follow-ups in an orthopedic trauma population: a pilot study. J Orthop Trauma2015;
29: e139–e145.
88.
SardiniESerpelloniMLanciniM.Wireless instrumented crutches for force and movement measurements for gait monitoring. IEEE Trans Instrum Meas2015;
64: 3369–3379.
89.
MoffetHTousignantMNadeauS, et al.
In-home telerehabilitation compared with face-to-face rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty: a noninferiority randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am2015;
97: 1129–1141.
90.
GuptaPVermaPGuptaR, et al. MovAid – a novel device for advanced rehabilitation monitoring. In: 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), Milan, Italy, 2015, pp.4655–4658.
91.
SuM-JChenI-LChenH-S, et al. Continuous spine care service for elderly. In: 2015 Eighth International Conference on Mobile Computing and Ubiquitous Networking (ICMU), Hakodate, 2015, pp.90–91.
92.
RowellPDPincusPWhiteM, et al.
Telehealth in paediatric orthopaedic surgery in Queensland: a 10-year review. ANZ J Surg2014;
84: 955–959.
93.
ShararehBSchwarzkopfR.Effectiveness of telemedical applications in postoperative follow-up after total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2014;
29: 918–922.e1.
94.
DaruwallaZJWongKLThambiahJ.The application of telemedicine in orthopedic surgery in Singapore: a pilot study on a secure, mobile telehealth application and messaging platform. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth2014;
2: e28.
95.
GlinkowskiWMichońskiJZukowskaA, et al.
The time effectiveness of three-dimensional telediagnostic postural screening of back curvatures and scoliosis. Telemed J E Health2014;
20: 11–17.
96.
PiekarskiJKlimiecEZaraskaW. Application of mobile computers in a measuring system supporting examination of posture diseases. In: Proceedings of the SPIE 8902, Electron Technology Conference, Ryn, Poland, 25 July 2013.
97.
McGillANorthJ.An analysis of an ongoing trial of rural videoconference fracture clinics. J Telemed Telecare2012;
18: 470–472.
98.
MelaasP-CCraneMDaP, et al.
Tele-orthopaedics: United States Army European Regional Medical Command.Stud Health Technol Inform2012;
173: 294–296.
99.
GlinkowskiW.Web-based support for fracture healing evaluation and monitoring. Telemed J E Health2011;
17: 201–210.
100.
CabanaFBoissyPTousignantM, et al.
Interrater agreement between telerehabilitation and face-to-face clinical outcome measurements for total knee arthroplasty. Telemed J E Health2010;
16: 293–298.
101.
HadjinicolaouMGNilavalanRItagakiT, et al.
Emergency TeleOrthPaedics m-health system for wireless communication links. IET Commun2009;
3: 1284–1296.
102.
ProtopappasVCBagaDAFotiadisDI, et al.
An ultrasound wearable system for the monitoring and acceleration of fracture healing in long bones. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng2005;
52: 1597–1608.
103.
DuZJiaZKongM. Virtual reality-based telesurgery via teleprogramming scheme combined with semi-autonomous control. In: 2005 IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology 27th Annual Conference, Shanghai, 2005, pp.2153–2156.
104.
ThomasKBurtonDWithrowL, et al.
Impact of a preoperative education program via interactive telehealth network for rural patients having total joint replacement. Orthop Nurs2004;
23: 39–44.
105.
VuolioSWinbladIOhinmaaA, et al.
Videoconferencing for orthopaedic outpatients: one-year follow-up. J Telemed Telecare2003;
9: 8–11.
106.
HarnoKArajärviEPaavolaT, et al.
Clinical effectiveness and cost analysis of patient referral by videoconferencing in orthopaedics. J Telemed Telecare2001;
7: 219–225.
107.
LauCChurchillSKimJ, et al. Web-based home telemedicine system for orthopaedics. In: Proceedings of the SPIE, Medical Imaging Display Conference, 2001, vol. 4319, pp.693–698.
108.
PopescuVGBurdeaGCBouzitM, et al.
A virtual-reality-based telerehabilitation system with force feedback. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed2000;
4: 45–51.
109.
HaukipuroKOhinmaaAWinbladI, et al.
The feasibility of telemedicine for orthopaedic outpatient clinics – a randomized controlled trial. J Telemed Telecare2000;
6: 193–198.
110.
BurdeaGPopescuVHentzV, et al.
Virtual reality-based orthopedic telerehabilitation. IEEE Trans Rehabil Eng2000;
8: 430–432.
111.
CouturierPTyrrellJTonettiJ, et al.
Feasibility of orthopaedic teleconsulting in a geriatric rehabilitation service. J Telemed Telecare1998;
4: 85–87.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
