Introduction: Information consent is a legal and ethical requirement when planning a surgical procedure. Information shared must be clear and honest to achieve a real process of shared decision making. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to validate an online tool of information consent. Method: This web application provided to the patient multimedia information resources (information about the pathology and its inherent risks of treatment) and allowed the surgeon to ensure suitable understanding of the patient with a conclusive evidence in a personal folder. We conducted a prospective study from February 2015 to February 2016. In all, 145 adult patients (48 men, 97 women, mean age 52 years) suffering an unilateral carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) were included. They all had a personal mobile phone number for an e-signature. The questionnaire applied to CTS consisted of 18 items with binary answers yes/no, with a possibility of reinformation. Indeed, the patient was asked to reevaluate his answer with the possibility not to validate the issue. Each item must be checked and validated by the patient before discovering next one. The questions concerned the knowledge of the disease (physiopathology and causes) and its treatment (technical procedures), the risks (infection, reflex sympathic dystrophy, pain, lack of grip strength), and the expected benefits (disparition of paresthesia/pain, sensitivity of finger tips). At the end, the questionnaire was validated with an electronic signature via a SMS code. Results: The average duration of consent was 7 minutes 30 seconds (3-31). All patients validated their e-consent. In decreasing order, the items which needed reformulation were reflex sympathetic dystrophy (32%), the risk of injury to the median nerve (23%), the ability to adapt to the intraoperative gesture circumstances (10%), the hygiene regulations (4%), and a disagreement about the side to be treated (3%). There were no electronic signature failure. Conclusion: The use of this online application allowed patients to have access to informative and suitable content that seemed subjectively relevant (no invalidation). It allowed the patient to participate in its therapeutic options. Thus, the surgeon could assess the quality of the information that he delivered and the insurance that the consent was obtained. Further questionnaires about other pathologies will be developed, thanks to this first experience.
