Social deprivation in patients requiring pelvic exenterative surgery

Impact of geographical health disparities on outcomes following pelvic exenteration at a centralised quaternary referral centre

INTRODUCTION

Pelvic exenteration (PE) is an ultra-radical procedure performed for primary or recurrent malignancies confined to the pelvis. Health outcomes for rural Australian populations are generally inferior compared to those from metropolitan centres, however, the effect of geographical location on outcomes following PE is poorly defined. The aim of this study was to investigate how geographical location affects oncological, quality of life (QoL) and survival outcomes following PE.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing PE between 1994 and 2022 at a single centre were included. Patient post codes were linked with the Australian Statistical Geography Standard Remoteness Structure to stratify patients into five groups based on the geographical location of their residence. Primary outcome measures included patient survival, QoL and oncological outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 953 patients were included, of which 626 (65.7%) were from major cities, 227 (23.8%) inner regional, 84 (8.8%) outer regional, 9 (0.9%) remote, and 7 (0.7%) very remote areas. Rural patients were more likely to undergo PE for primary rectal cancer (p = 002) and less likely for recurrent, non-rectal carcinoma (p = 0.027). Rural patients less frequently had health insurance (p < 0.001) but were more likely to have undergone neoadjuvant radiotherapy (p = 0.022). No difference in length-of-admission, in-hospital complication rates, QoL at 36 months or survival was observed between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite geographical disparities, rural populations undergoing PE achieved equally favourable outcomes as populations from metropolitan areas. Enhancing access to specialised care may facilitate better outcomes of patients residing in regional and remote areas.

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

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.