The Effects of Socioeconomic Status on Outcomes Following Total Ankle Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Category: Ankle; Ankle Arthritis Introduction/Purpose: There is limited literature on the effects of socioeconomic factors on outcomes after total ankle arthroplasty (TAA). In the setting of hip or knee arthroplasty, patients of a lower socioeconomic status demonstrate poorer post- operative satisfaction, longer lengths of stay, and larger functional limitations. It is important to ascertain whether this phenomenon is present in ankle arthritis patients. This is the first study to address the weight of potential socioeconomic factors in affecting various socioeconomic classes, in terms of how they benefit from ankle arthroplasty. Methods: This is retrospective cohort study of 447 patients who underwent a TAA. Primary outcomes included pre-operative and final follow-up AAOS pain, AAOS disability, and SF-36 scores. We then used postal codes to determine median household income using Canadian 2015 census data. Incomes were divided into quintiles based on equal amounts over the range of incomes. These income groups were then compared for differences in outcome measures. Statistical analysis was done using unpaired t- test. Results: A total of 447 patients were divided into quintiles by income. From lowest income to highest income, the groups had 54, 207, 86, 64, and 36 patients, respectively. The average time from surgery to final follow up was 85.6 months. Interestingly, we found that patients within the middle household income groups had significantly lower AAOS disability scores compared to the lowest income groups at final follow-up (26.41 vs 35.70, p=0.035). Furthermore, there was a trend towards middle income households and lower post-operative AAOS pain scores compared to the lowest income group (19.57 vs 26.65, p=0.063). There was also a trend toward poorer AAOS disability scores when comparing middle income groups to high income groups post- operatively (26.41 vs 32.27, p=0.058). Pre-operatively, patients within the middle-income group had more pain, compared to the lowest and the highest income groups. Conclusion: Patients from middle income groups who have undergone TAA demonstrate poorer function and possibly more pain, compared to lower and higher income groups. This suggests that TAA is a viable option for lower socioeconomic groups and should not be a source of discouragement for surgeons. In this circumstance there is no real disparity between the rich and the poor. Further investigation is needed to explore reasons for diminished performance in middle class patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".