During the COVID-19 pandemic, video/phone consultations (VPC) were increasingly utilised as an alternative to face-to-face (F2F) consultations, to minimise nosocomial viral exposure. We previously demonstrated that VPCs were highly rated by both patients and clinicians. This study compared satisfaction between both clinic modalities in contemporaneously delivered outpatient surveys. We also assessed the feasibility and effects of converting F2F orthopaedic consultations to VPC.

Surveys were posted to patients who attended VPCs and F2F consultations at a large tertiary centre from August to October 2020 inclusive, across 51 specialties. F2F and VPC patients ranked their overall satisfaction with their consultation on a 10-point numerical scale (10=highest satisfaction). Simultaneously, a pilot study was undertaken of outpatient fracture clinics to identify patients suitable for VPCs, with X-rays (if needed) taken and transferred from satellite sites to reduce tertiary centre footfall.

For F2F consultations, 1419 of 4465 surveys (31.8%) were returned with similar rates for VPCs (1332 of 4572, 29.1%). While mean satisfaction ratings were high for both clinic modalities, they were significantly higher for F2F: 9.13 (95% CI 9.05-9.22) for F2F clinics, compared to 8.23 (95% CI 8.11-8.35) for VPCs (p<0.001, t-test). F2F patients were almost four times more likely to state a preference for future F2F appointments compared to VPCs, whereas patients who attended VPCs showed an equal preference for either option (p< 0.001, chi2 test). 53% of 111 fracture clinic patients sampled were identified as suitable for VPCs. 1 patient (1.7%) requested their VPC to be converted to F2F due to poor symptom control.

Our study showed patients reported high satisfaction ratings for both F2F clinics and VPCs, with prior experience of VPCs affecting patients’ future preferences. Only 1.7% of F2F patients converted to VPCs declined their virtual appointment. Our results support future use of VPCs.

Various arthroscopic techniques using differing graft materials have been described and present a potential alternative to arthroplasty for rotator cuff arthropathy. We describe the short-term outcomes of allograft reconstruction, having evolved of our surgical technique from graft interposition to superior capsule reconstruction (SCR). All patients with an irreparable tear, in the absence of clinical and radiograph evidence of osteoarthritis, who underwent an allograft (Graft Jacket^TM) reconstruction with either an arthroscopic interposition or SCR technique within our institution were included. A retrospective case note analysis was performed to ascertain perioperative details including total operating and consumable implant costs. 15 patients were in the interposition group, mean age 66 years (48–77). Mean postoperative follow-up time was 17 months (1.9 −27.8). The mean OSS improved from 30.6 to 35.7 (p<0.05). Additionally, mean pain scores out of 10 improved from 7.7 to 1.5 (p<0.01). Mean satisfaction for the surgery was 7.8 out of 10. Complications included 2 re-ruptures (13.3%), 1 infection (6.7%) and 1 case of no improvement (6.7%). In the SCR group, there were 10 patients, mean age 64.5 (56– 68 years). Half of these patients had previous rotator cuff surgery. Mean postoperative follow-up time was 8.7 months (1.9 – 16.3). The mean OSS improved from 24 to 32.9 (p<0.01). Similarly, pain scores decreased from 7.9 to 3.5 (p<0.01). Mean satisfaction was 7.2. Complications included 1 case of no improvement (10%) resulting in a reverse TSR and 1 re-rupture (10%). A formal, prospective comparison trial is advocated to determine if SCR is superior.