Citations

Study Design. Delphi expert panel consensus. Objective. To obtain expert consensus on best practices for appropriate telemedicine utilization in spine surgery. Summary of Background Data. Several studies have shown high patient satisfaction associated with telemedicine during the COVID-19 peak pandemic period as well as after easing of restrictions. As this technology will most likely continue to be employed, there is a need to define appropriate utilization. Methods. An expert panel consisting of 27 spine surgeons from various countries was assembled in February 2021. A two-round consensus-based Delphi method was used to generate consensus statements on various aspects of telemedicine (separated as video visits or audio visits) including themes, such as patient location and impact of patient diagnosis, on assessment of new patients. Topics with ≥75% agreement were categorized as having achieved a consensus. Results. The expert panel reviewed a total of 59 statements. Of these, 32 achieved consensus. The panel had consensus that video visits could be utilized regardless of patient location and that video visits are appropriate for evaluating as well as indicating for surgery multiple common spine pathologies, such as lumbar stenosis, lumbar radiculopathy, and cervical radiculopathy. Finally, the panel had consensus that video visits could be appropriate for a variety of visit types including early, midterm, longer term postoperative follow-up, follow-up for imaging review, and follow-up after an intervention (i.e., physical therapy, injection). Conclusion. Although telemedicine was initially introduced out of necessity, this technology most likely will remain due to evidence of high patient satisfaction and significant cost savings. This study was able to provide a framework for appropriate telemedicine utilization in spine surgery from a panel of experts. However, several questions remain for future research, such as whether or not an in-person consultation is necessary prior to surgery and which physical exam maneuvers are appropriate for telemedicine. Level of Evidence: 4

SummaryIntroductionPost‐colonoscopy colorectal cancers (PCCRCs) have been proposed as a performance metric for colonoscopy quality assurance programs. Previously, there was no standardised terminology or reporting methods. In 2018, the World Endoscopy Organization (WEO) advised standardised definitions and prevalence calculation methodology.AimsTo assess PCCRC burden using WEO standardised methods, to explore causes of heterogeneity, and to review changes in prevalence over timeMethodsWe updated a prior systematic review by searching Ovid MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from 1 January 2013 to 31 January 2021 to identify population‐based studies (or multicentre studies representative of the local population) reporting PCCRC prevalence (PROSPERO [CRD42020183796]). Two authors independently determined study eligibility, assessed quality, and extracted data. We estimated the PCCRC 3‐year prevalence using WEO‐recommended methodologies and investigated between‐study sources of heterogeneity. We examined changes in prevalence over time.ResultsFifteen studies reporting on 25 872 PCCRC cases met eligibility criteria. Pooled PCCRC 3 year prevalence was 8.2% (95% CI = 6.9%‐9.4%, I2 = 98.2%) across four European studies using WEO precise methodology. Proximal PCCRC prevalence was greater than distal (9.7% [95% CI = 7.0%‐12.4%] vs 5.4% [95% CI = 2.9%‐7.8%], I2 = 99.2%). Seven studies reporting PCCRC rates over time showed no consistent trend: four showed a decrease, one an increase and two were unchanged. Between‐study heterogeneity was high.ConclusionsPooled 3‐year PCCRC prevalence was 8.2% (95% CI = 6.9%‐9.4%). Despite WEO standardised methodology to define and calculate PCCRC rates, there was significant heterogeneity among studies. Comparing rates between populations remains challenging and additional studies are needed to better understand the global PCCRC burden to inform quality assurance programs.