Introduction: The purpose of this investigation is to assess the current utilization of telehealth capabilities at academic orthopaedic departments in the United States and to determine how practice patterns have been directly influenced by the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: Orthopaedic surgery programs participating in the Electronic Residency Application Service were identified. One hundred seventy-five (175) programs were presented with a seven-item questionnaire addressing whether each program is using telehealth services in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: Of the 175 Electronic Residency Application Service participant orthopaedic programs, 168 responded for a total response rate of 96%. Of the 106 institutions using telehealth services, 88 (83%) cited the COVID-19 pandemic as the impetus for implementation of telehealth services. Institutions located in the Northeast and South regions were markedly more likely to offer telehealth services. Heat map analysis demonstrates an associative overlap of regional “hot spots” with direct comparison of COVID-19 cases in the United States and orthopaedic departments providing telehealth services. Discussion: This study demonstrates the impressive measures academic orthopaedic institutions are taking to meet the needs of our patients by identifying a notable increase in new telehealth offerings throughout the United States with a positive correlation with COVID-19 disease burden.

Background: Anterior vertebral body tethering (AVBT) is a growth-modulation technique theorized to correct adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) without the postoperative stiffness imposed by posterior spinal fusion. However, data are limited to small series examining short-term outcomes. To assess AVBT’s potential as a viable alternative to posterior spinal fusion (PSF), a comprehensive comparison is warranted. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare postoperative outcomes between patients with AIS undergoing PSF and AVBT. Our primary objective was to compare complication and reoperation rates at available follow-up times. Secondary objectives included comparing mid-term Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-22 scores, and coronal and sagittal-plane Cobb angle corrections. Methods: We performed a systematic review of outcome studies following AVBT and/or PSF procedures. The inclusion criteria included the following: AVBT and/or PSF procedures; Lenke 1 or 2 curves; an age of 10 to 18 years for >90% of the patient population; <10% non-AIS scoliosis etiology; and follow-up of ≥1 year. A single-arm, random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Deformity corrections, complication and reoperation rates, and postoperative SRS-22 scores were recorded. Results: Ten AVBT studies (211 patients) and 14 PSF studies (1,069 patients) were included. The mean follow-up durations were similar for both groups. Pooled complication rates were 26% for AVBT versus 2% for PSF, and reoperation rates were 14.1% for AVBT versus 0.6% for PSF with nonoverlapping confidence intervals (CIs). The pooled reoperation rate among studies with follow-up times of ≥36 months was 24.7% in AVBT versus 1.8% in PSF. Deformity correction, clinical outcomes, and mid-term SRS-22 scores were similar. Conclusions: Our study showed greater rates of complications and reoperations with AVBT compared with PSF. Reoperation rates were significantly greater in AVBT studies with longer follow-up (≥36 months). Deformity correction, clinical outcomes, and mid-term SRS-22 scores were similar. While a potential fusionless treatment for AIS merits excitement, clinicians should consider AVBT with caution. Future long-term randomized prospective studies are needed. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background Anatomy education in US medical schools has seen numerous changes since the call for medical education reform in 2010. The purpose of this study was to survey US medical schools to assess recent trends in anatomy education, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on anatomy teaching, and future directions of medical school anatomy curricula. Methods We sent a 29-item survey to anatomy course directors of 145 AAMC-associated allopathic medical schools inquiring about their schools’ anatomy curricula. The survey contained objective discrete questions concerning the curricula changes preceding COVID-19 and those directly related to COVID-19. We also asked subjective and open-ended questions about the impact of COVID-19 and future directions of anatomy education. Results A total of 117/143 course directors (82%) completed the survey. Most schools (60%) reported a major change to their anatomy course within the past five years, including a decrease in total course time (20%), integration of anatomy into other courses (19%), and implementation of a “flipped classroom” (15%) teaching style. Due to COVID-19, there was a decrease in the fraction of course time dedicated to “hands-on” learning (p < 0.01) and teaching of clinical correlates (p = 0.02) and radiology (p < 0.01). Most course directors (79%) reported that COVID-19 had a negative impact on quality of learning due to decreased interactive or in-person (62%) learning and lack of dissection (44%). Incorporation of virtual-reality applications or 3D anatomy software (23%) and a decrease in cadaver dissection (13%) were the most common future anticipated changes. Conclusion The constraints conferred by COVID-19 highlight the importance of maximizing interactive learning in the discipline of anatomy. In an era of social distancing and decreased emphasis on conventional anatomy dissection, adaptations of new technologies and teaching modalities may allow for traditional educational rigor to be sustained.