Centralization of complex surgical care has led patients to travel longer distances. Emerging evidence suggested a negative association between increased travel distance and mortality after pancreatectomy. However, the reason behind this association remains largely unknown. We sought to unravel the relationships among travel distance, receiving pancreatectomy at high volume hospitals (HVH), delayed surgery, and operative outcomes.
We identified 44,476 patients who underwent pancreatectomy for neoplasms between 2004 and 2013 at the reporting facility from the National Cancer Data Base. Multivariable analyses were performed to examine the independent relationships between increments in travel distance mortality (30-day and long-term survival), after adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidity, cancer stage and time trend. We then examined how further adjustment of procedure volume affected this relationship overall and among rural patients.
The median travel distance to undergo pancreatectomy increased from 16.5 to 18.7 miles (p for trend < 0.001). While longer travel distance was associated with delayed pancreatectomy, it was also related to higher odds of receiving pancreatectomy at HVH and lower post-operative mortality. In multivariable analysis, difference in mortality among patients with varying travel distance was attenuated by adjustment for procedure volume. However, longest travel distance was still associated with 77% lower 30-day mortality rate than shortest travel among rural patients even when procedure volume is accounted for.
Our large national study showed that the beneficial effect of longer travel distance on mortality after pancreatectomy is mainly attributable to increase in procedure volume. However, it may have additional benefits on rural patients not explained by volume. Distance may represent a surrogate for rural populations.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 March 2018.
All research outputs
#2,405,021
of 29,042,824 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the American College of Surgeons
#782
of 4,902 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,437
of 331,925 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the American College of Surgeons
#22
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,042,824 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,902 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,925 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
