Table 3.

Results of randomized controlled trials about the use of telemedicine in orthopedic consultations

Study	Authors	Results
1	Haukipuro et al. [14]	Videoconferencing was found to be feasible and the equipment functioned well technically. There were somewhat more problems in examining the telemedicine patients than the clinic patients. The two patient groups were equally satisfied with the specialist service. The telemedicine patients were more willing to have their next visit by videoconferencing than the conventional patients
	Ohinmaa et al. [22]	At a workload of 100 patients, the total cost, including travel and indirect costs, was 87.8 per patient in the telemedicine group and 114.0 per patient in the conventional group (i.e., a total cost saving from the use of teleconsultation of 2620). A cost-minimization analysis showed that telemedicine was less costly for society than conventional care at a workload of more than 80 patients per year. If the distance to specialist care were reduced from 160 to 80 km, the break-even point increased to about 200 patients per year
	Vuolio et al. [36]	Over half the patients had some form of regenerative arthritis: 15% had hip arthritis, 33% knee arthritis and 4% other arthritis. There were no differences in the implementation of the management plan between the two groups
2	Buvik et al. [6]	Cost effectiveness: video-based consultations through a distant, specialized clinic are cheaper than regular outpatient presentations, as long as the number of teleconsultations exceeds 151 per year
	Buvik et al. [7]	Patient satisfaction: 99% of the video-supported and 99% of the regular outpatient group found the consultation to be very satisfactory. 86% of the video-based group favored a video-based consultation for the next performance
	Buvik et al. [8]	Specialist evaluation and side effects: the primary outcome, the sum score of the specialist evaluation, was significantly lower (i.e., ‘better’) at UNN compared to RMC (1.72 vs. 1.82, p = 0.0030). The 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in score (0.05, 0.17) was within the non-inferiority margin. The orthopaedic surgeons involved evaluated 98% of the video-assisted consultations as ‘good’ or ‘very good’. In the ancillary analyses, there was no significant difference between the two groups. No serious events related to the mode of consultation