Impact of travel distance on short-term outcomes in patients receiving treatment for urolithiasis

A population-based study

Authors

  • Danielle Jenkins Queen's University
  • Greg Hosier Queen's University
  • Marlo Whitehead Queen's University
  • Darren Beiko Queen's University
  • Thomas McGregor Queen's University
  • Joseph Nashed Queen's University
  • D. Robert Siemens Queen's University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8775

Keywords:

Urolithiasis, distance, surgery, outcomes, readmission

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to assess the relationship between the distance traveled to receive treatment for urolithiasis and early outcomes.

METHODS: Using administrative data, patients who received interventions for urolithiasis in Ontario between 2003 and 2019 were stratified into three groups according to distance traveled. Descriptive statistics and the Chi-squared test were used to examine differences between these groups based on the treatment of choice. The primary outcomes were reoperation and readmission rates. To identify the factors associated with the co-primary outcomes, both univariate and multivariable logistic regression models were used.

RESULTS: A total of 127 195 patients were included in the final analysis, with most patients (78.7%) having their stone procedure within 30 km from their residence, whereas 7.5% traveled a distance >90 km. Most of those who traveled >90 km were for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) (59%). Type of procedure and region of residence were the only variables that appeared to have a clinically relevant association with greater distance traveled. Unadjusted analysis suggested longer distance traveled was associated with a decrease in the need for a repeat procedure; however, this was likely confounded by an association between distance traveled and procedure type. In adjusted analysis, early post-procedure health resource use did not appear to be dramatically increased with greater distance from care; readmission rates at 30 days were marginally lower among those who traveled 30–60 km vs. <30 km (odds ratio [OR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80–0.92) and had no detectable difference at >90 km vs. <30 km (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88–1.08). These observations of fewer or no difference in readmissions and emergency visits for those that traveled the greatest distances generally held true in the subgroup analysis for each surgical procedure.

CONCLUSIONS: This population-based study found no clinically remarkable associations between the distance traveled for urolithiasis treatment and early outcomes. In fact, some marginal decreases in resource use were observed with greater travel distance, perhaps reflecting some effect of travel to higher-volume referral centers or enhanced processes for those that needed to travel farther for care.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2024-08-30

How to Cite

Jenkins, D. ., Hosier, G. ., Whitehead, M. ., Beiko, D. ., McGregor, T. ., Nashed, J. ., & Siemens, D. R. (2024). Impact of travel distance on short-term outcomes in patients receiving treatment for urolithiasis: A population-based study . Canadian Urological Association Journal, 19(1), E36–43. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.8775

Issue

Vol. 19 No. 1 (2025): CUAJ January

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.