Background: The early months of the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic in New York City led to a rapid transition of non-essential in-person health care, including outpatient arthroplasty visits, to a telemedicine context. Questions/Purposes: Based on our initial experiences with telemedicine in an outpatient arthroplasty setting, we sought to determine early lessons learned that may be applicable to other providers adopting or expanding telemedicine services. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed by surveying all patients undergoing telemedicine visits with 8 arthroplasty surgeons at 1 orthopedic specialty hospital in New York City from April 8 to May 19, 2020. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze demographic data, satisfaction with the telemedicine visit, and positive and negative takeaways. Results: In all, 164 patients completed the survey. The most common reasons for the telemedicine visit were short-term (less than 6 months), postoperative appointment ( n = 88; 54%), and new patient consultation ( n = 32; 20%). A total of 84 patients (51%) noted a reduction in expenses versus standard outpatient care. Several positive themes emerged from patient feedback, including less anxiety and stress related to traveling ( n = 82; 50%), feeling more at ease in a familiar environment ( n = 54; 33%), and the ability to assess postoperative home environment ( n = 13; 8%). However, patients also expressed concerns about the difficulty addressing symptoms in the absence of an in-person examination ( n = 28; 17%), a decreased sense of interpersonal connection with the physician ( n = 20; 12%), and technical difficulties ( n = 14; 9%). Conclusions: Patients were satisfied with their telemedicine experience during the COVID-19 pandemic; however, we identified several areas amenable to improvement. Further study is warranted., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Drake G. LeBrun, MD, MPH, Christina Malfer, BA, Mallory Wilson, BA, Kaitlin M. Carroll, BA, and Victoria Wang declare that they have no conflicts of interest. David J. Mayman, MD, reports stock or stock options from Imagen, Wishbone, and Insight; stock or stock options and royalties from Orthalign; and personal fees, royalties, and research support from Smith and Nephew, outside the submitted work. Michael B. Cross, MD, reports personal fees from Depuy, Smith and Nephew, and Flexion Therapeutics; personal fees and research support from Exactech; personal fees and stock or stock options from Imagen; personal fees, research support, and stock or stock options from Intellijoint; personal fees and research support from KCI; and stock or stock options from Parvizi Surgical Innovation, outside the submitted work. Michael M. Alexiades, MD, reports personal fees and royalties from DJ Orthopedics, outside the submitted work. Seth A. Jerabek, MD, reports stock or stock options from Imagen, personal fees and research support from Stryker, outside the submitted work. Fred D. Cushner, MD, reports personal fees from Acelity and Smith and Nephew, stock or stock options from Canary Medical, personal fees and stock or stock options from Orthalign, outside the submitted work. Jonathan M. Vigdorchik, MD, reports personal fees and research support from Corin, personal fees and stock or stock options from Intellijoint, and personal fees from Medacta, Motion Insights, and Zimmer, outside the submitted work. Steven B. Haas, MD, reports personal fees from Smith and Nephew, outside the submitted work. Michael P. Ast, MD, reports personal fees from Conformis, Stryker, and Surgical Care Affiliates; personal fees, stock or stock options, and royalties from Orthalign; stock or stock options from OSSO VR; and personal fees and research support from Smith and Nephew, outside the submitted work., (© The Author(s) 2020.)