Equality in Hip Arthroscopy Outcomes Can Be Achieved Regardless of Patient Socioeconomic Status

• Published in: The American journal of sports medicine 2021-12, Vol.49 (14), p.3915-3924
• Main Authors: Saks, Benjamin R., Ouyang, Vivian W., Domb, Elijah S., Jimenez, Andrew E., Maldonado, David R., Lall, Ajay C., Domb, Benjamin G.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Activities of Daily Living; Arthroscopy; Cohort Studies; Femoracetabular Impingement - surgery; Follow-Up Studies; Hip Joint - diagnostic imaging; Hip Joint - surgery; Humans; Male; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Patients; Retrospective Studies; Social Class; Social Deprivation; Socioeconomic factors; Socioeconomic status; Sports medicine; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 0363-5465; 1552-3365
• DOI: 10.1177/03635465211046932

Background: Access to quality health care and treatment outcomes can be affected by patients’ socioeconomic status (SES). Purpose: To evaluate the effect of patient SES on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after arthroscopic hip surgery. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Demographic, radiographic, and intraoperative data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed on all patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and labral tear between February 2008 and September 2017 at one institution. Patients were divided into 4 cohorts based on the Social Deprivation Index (SDI) of their zip code. SDI is a composite measure that quantifies the level of disadvantage in certain geographical areas. Patients had a minimum 2-year follow-up for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), International Hip Outcome Tool—12, and visual analog scale (VAS) for both pain and satisfaction. Rates of achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) were calculated for the mHHS, NAHS, and VAS pain score. Rates of secondary surgery were also recorded. Results: A total of 680 hips (616 patients) were included. The mean follow-up time for the entire cohort was 30.25 months. Division of the cohort into quartiles based on the SDI national averages yielded 254 hips (37.4%) in group 1, 184 (27.1%) in group 2, 148 (21.8%) in group 3, and 94 (13.8%) in group 4. Group 1 contained the most affluent patients. There were significantly more men in group 4 than in group 2, and the mean body mass index was greater in group 4 than in groups 1 and 2. There were no differences in preoperative radiographic measurements, intraoperative findings, or rates of concomitant procedures performed. All preoperative and postoperative PROMs were similar between the groups, as well as in the rates of achieving the MCID or PASS. No differences in the rate of secondary surgeries were reported. Conclusion: Regardless of SES, patients were able to achieve significant improvements in several PROMs after hip arthroscopy for FAIS and labral tear at the minimum 2-year follow-up. Additionally, patients from all SES groups achieved clinically meaningful improvement at similar rates.