Learn article
A structured remote-follow-up model that separates what video and image review can support from examinations, emergencies, imaging, and procedures that require local or in-person care.
Video visits can support history, visual review, education, therapy coordination, and discussion of submitted imaging. They cannot reliably replace palpation, formal strength and sensory testing, pulse assessment, precise joint measurement, diagnostic imaging acquisition, urgent examination, or a procedure.
Systematic reviews and randomized studies in broader orthopedics report high satisfaction and similar outcomes for selected remote consultations. Populations, visit types, and exclusions vary, and complex active distraction has not been established as interchangeable with in-person care. Use the evidence to support a hybrid system, not remote-only assurances. [1][2]
The operating team should specify views, field of view, calibration, positioning, acceptable file format, upload method, cadence, and urgency categories. DICOM is preferable when measurement or windowing matters. A phone photograph of a display should not silently substitute for a diagnostic study.
Use the center's approved portal or transfer method for records and diagnostic images. Consumer messaging can lose metadata, compress images, mix patients, and create access problems. Security does not make a clinical workflow adequate, but an insecure workflow adds avoidable privacy and continuity risk.
Complete a test video visit, upload a sample DICOM study, confirm interpreter access, reach the after-hours route, and identify the local facility that will examine and image the limb. If any part fails during testing, it is not a reliable postoperative plan.
Informational only. Not medical advice.