Background: While online orthopedic resources are becoming an increasingly popular avenue for patient education, videos on YouTube are not subject to peer review. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate the quality of YouTube videos for patient education in ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) injuries of the elbow. Methods: A search of keywords for UCL injury was conducted through the YouTube search engine. Each video was categorized by source and content. Video quality, reliability, and accuracy were assessed by two independent raters using five metrics: (1) Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria (range 0–4) for video reliability; (2) modified DISCERN score (range 1–5) for video reliability; (3) Global Quality Score (GQS; range 1–5) for video quality; (4) ulnar collateral ligament-specific score (UCL-SS; range 0–16), a novel score for comprehensiveness of health information presented; and (5) accuracy score (AS; range 1–3) for accuracy. Results: Video content was comprised predominantly of disease-specific information (52%) and surgical technique (33%). The most common video sources were physician (42%) and commercial (23%). The mean JAMA score, modified DISCERN score, GQS, UCL-SS, and AS were 1.8, 2.4, 1.9, 5.3, and 2.7 respectively. Conclusions Overall, YouTube is not a reliable or high-quality source for patients seeking information regarding UCL injuries, especially with videos uploaded by non-physician sources. The multiplicity of low quality, low reliability, and irrelevant videos can create a cumbersome and even inaccurate learning experience for patients.

Purpose: Patients with cancer are particularly vulnerable to coronavirus disease (COVID). Transportation barriers made travel to obtain medical care more difficult during the pandemic. Whether these factors led to changes in the distance traveled for radiotherapy and the coordinated location of radiation treatment is unknown. Materials and Methods: We analyzed patients across 60 cancer sites in the National Cancer Database from 2018 to 2020. Demographic and clinical variables were analyzed for changes in distance traveled for radiotherapy. We designated the facilities in the 99th percentile or above in terms of the proportion of patients who traveled more than 200 miles as “destination facilities.” We defined “coordinated care” as undergoing radiotherapy at the same facility where the cancer was diagnosed. Results: We evaluated 1,151,954 patients. There was a greater than 1% decrease in the proportion of patients treated in the Mid-Atlantic States. Mean distance traveled from place of residence to radiation treatment decreased from 28.6 to 25.9 miles, and the proportion traveling greater than 50 miles decreased from 7.7% to 7.1%. At “destination facilities,” the proportion traveling more than 200 miles decreased from 29.3% in 2018 to 24% in 2020. In comparison, at the other hospitals, the proportion traveling more than 200 miles decreased from 1.07% to 0.97%. In 2020, residing in a rural area resulted in a lower odds of having coordinated care (multivariable odds ratio = 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.83–0.95). Conclusion The first year of the COVID pandemic measurably impacted the location of U.S. radiation therapy treatment.