Poster 189: Does Patient Resiliency Influence Patient-Reported Outcomes at Presentation in Symptomatic Femoroacetabular Impingement?
Authors: Nepple Jeffrey , O’Connor Kyle , Westermann Robert , Spiker Andrea , Schmitz Matthew , Krych Aaron , Carsen Sasha , ANCHOR Study Group  , Clohisy John 
Published: October 2024

Objectives:

The role of psychological factors in the clinical presentation and outcomes of treated is increasingly recognized in orthopaedic surgery. Particularly, in prearthritic hip disorders, young adult hip patients often have significant psychological undertones. Patient resiliency, as quantified by the brief resiliency scale (BRS), is a static patient characteristic and has been increasingly recognized for its potential role in pain and symptomatology. The purpose of the current study was to investigate the correlation between BRS and traditional hip patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Methods:

A prospective multicenter cohort study of 696 patients undergoing femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) primary hip arthroscopy surgery was performed and utilized for the current study. Inclusion criteria are patients aged 14 to 45 years old with idiopathic FAI not caused by childhood disease. Exclusion criteria are previous ipsilateral hip procedures or disease processes such as neuromuscular disease or high-grade osteoarthritis. PROMs included the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) domains of pain interference, physical function, mobility, anxiety, and depression, as well as hip disability and osteoarthritis and outcome score (HOOS), modified Harris hip score (mHHS), international hip outcome tool (iHOT-12), and short form-12 (SF-12). Resiliency was divided into low resiliency (score < 3), normal resiliency (score 3 to 4.3), and high resiliency (score > 4.3) as described by Smith et al1 to use as categorical variables to compare to the other patient-reported scores. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) was calculated and the Kruskall Willis test was used to measure association between BRS and the other PROMs for continuous and categorical values, respectively. R values ≥0.7, ≥0.4, and ≥0.1 signify a strong, moderate, and weak correlation, respectively. For categorical analysis, P values < 0.05 were considered significant.

Results:

The cohort of 696 patients had mean age was 24.9 ± 7.9 years and a female predominance at 56%. Average BRS scores were 3.7 ± 0.7. Overall, 13.7% of patients had low resiliency, while 65.8% had normal resiliency and 20.5% had high resiliency. Linear correlation, using Pearson coefficients, found associations between BRS and all other scores. There were only weak associations between BRS scores and PROs (all r < 0.25) except a moderate correlation with PROMIS depression (r = -0.476, p < 0.001) and PROMIS anxiety (r = -0.481, p < 0.001). Patients in higher resiliency groups reported less severe symptoms in HOOS – quality of life (p < 0.001), HOOS – sports and recreation (p = 0.004), HOOS – activities of daily living (p = 0.004), HOOS – pain (p = 0.026), iHOT-12 (p = 0.01), mHHS (p = 0.004), SF-12 mental (p < 0.001), PROMIS physical function (p = 0.003), PROMIS pain (p < 0.001), PROMIS mobility (p < 0.001), PROMIS depression (p < 0.001), and PROMIS anxiety (p < 0.001). Patients with higher activity levels (UCLA ≥9) demonstrated higher resiliency (p = 0.04).

Conclusions:

In FAI patients, patient resiliency appears to influence baseline PROs. Overall, 14% of patients had low resiliency while 21% had high resiliency. Further studies are needed to investigate this relationship and whether concurrent psychological treatment will help improve patient outcomes after hip arthroscopy for FAI. [Figure: see text]