Telehealth in PM&R: Past, present, and future in clinical practice and opportunities for translational research.

Telehealth refers to the use of telecommunication devices and other forms of technology to provide services outside of the traditional in-person health care delivery system. Growth in the use of telehealth creates new challenges and opportunities for implementation in clinical practice. The American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R) assembled an expert group to develop a white paper to examine telehealth innovation in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PM&R). The resultant white paper summarizes how telehealth is best used in the field of PM&R while highlighting current knowledge deficits and technological limitations. The report identifies new and transformative opportunities for PM&R to advance translational research related to telehealth and enhance patient care.

Use of transtibial aimer via the accessory anteromedial portal to identify the center of the ACL footprint.

PURPOSE: To assess the ability of a transtibial aimer with a 7-mm off-set in a standardized position to reach the center of the ACL footprint on the femur through the AM portal. METHODS: Nineteen cadaveric knees were dissected, and the perimeter of the femoral ACL footprint was marked. The aimer was placed just superior to the medial joint line close to the medial condyle through the AM portal. The guide was rested upon the posterior cortex and placed in three different positions: (A) at zero degrees in frontal plane and 60° in axial plane, (B) at 45° in frontal and 45° in axial, and (C) at the center of the ACL insertion site under direct visualization. A digital camera was used to take pictures on the axial plane, and Image J software was used for angle measurement. Aluminum beads were used to mark the three positions indicated by the aimer, and CT scans were performed. The distances from the true center of the ACL to each point were determined. RESULTS: Position A resulted in femoral tunnel placement furthest from the center of the ACL footprint (8.6 mm). Position B was at a distance of 3.2 mm, and position C was the most accurate, with an average distance of 2.0 mm. The angles required by Position C varied with an average of 54° ± 11° in the frontal plane and an average of 44° ± 6° in the axial plane. CONCLUSION: The 7-mm transtibial aimer was unable to reach the center of ACL footprint at a fixed orientation.

Retrograde ankle arthrodesis using an intramedullary nail: a comparison of patients with and without diabetes mellitus.

Tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis (TTCA) has been used for the salvage of severe deformity involving the ankle and hindfoot. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results of retrograde intramedullary nailing (IMN) for severe ankle/hindfoot pathology in a group of patients with diabetic neuropathy and compare them with a cohort of nondiabetic patients. Our working hypothesis was that patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and neuropathy would experience inferior outcomes and more postoperative complications than patients who did not have DM. Forty consecutive patients (17 with DM and 23 without DM) who had a minimum follow-up of 1 year were retrospectively reviewed. The mean follow-up was 33 months and the mean AOFAS Ankle Hindfoot Score significantly improved form 19 to 55. Patients with DM improved on average from 24 to 55 and patients without DM improved from 16 to 55. Although a postoperative complication was experienced in 59% of patients with DM compared with 44% of patients without DM, this difference did not reach statistical significance with the numbers available. More patients with DM used a brace at final follow-up than patients without DM. Those patients who had a history of preoperative skin ulceration had higher rates of infection than those patients who did not have skin ulcers. We did not find any significant postoperative differences in AOFAS Ankle Hindfoot Scores between those patients with DM versus patients without DM. On average, patients with DM demonstrated an improvement of 129% and patients without diabetes improved by 243%. With the numbers available, we were not able to confirm our hypothesis that patients with DM experienced significantly lower clinical outcomes than patients without DM. A study of 100 patients in each group would be necessary to achieve adequate power to conclusively state that DM had no impact on the final outcome.