Background The impact of hospital volume after rectal cancer surgery is seldom investigated. This study aimed to analyse the impact of annual rectal cancer surgery cases per hospital on postoperative mortality and failure to rescue. Methods All patients diagnosed with rectal cancer and who had a rectal resection procedure code from 2012 to 2015 were identified from nationwide administrative hospital data. Hospitals were grouped into five quintiles according to caseload. The absolute number of patients, postoperative deaths and failure to rescue (defined as in‐hospital mortality after a documented postoperative complication) for severe postoperative complications were determined. Results Some 64 349 patients were identified. The overall in‐house mortality rate was 3·9 per cent. The crude in‐hospital mortality rate ranged from 5·3 per cent in very low‐volume hospitals to 2·6 per cent in very high‐volume centres, with a distinct trend between volume categories (P < 0·001). In multivariable logistic regression analysis using hospital volume as random effect, very high‐volume hospitals (53 interventions/year) had a risk‐adjusted odds ratio of 0·58 (95 per cent c.i. 0·47 to 0·73), compared with the baseline in‐house mortality rate in very low‐volume hospitals (6 interventions per year) (P < 0·001). The overall postoperative complication rate was comparable between different volume quintiles, but failure to rescue decreased significantly with increasing caseload (15·6 per cent after pulmonary embolism in the highest volume quintile versus 38 per cent in the lowest quintile; P = 0·010). Conclusion Patients who had rectal cancer surgery in high‐volume hospitals showed better outcomes and reduced failure to rescue rates for severe complications than those treated in low‐volume hospitals.

urgery represents a fundamental pillar of treatment for a multitude of diseases. In the case of lifethreatening indications such as appendicitis (1) or cancer therapy (e.g., treatment of colorectal liver metastases [2]), a surgical approach is often superior to conservative treatment strategies or, indeed, without alternative. As with all treatments, surgery is also associated with a certain level of morbidity and mortality. From experience, patients and treating physicians alike harbor anxiety about the occurrence of complications in surgical procedures (3). This can result in curative therapies being declined or delayed (4). In addition, recommendations advise that, as part of their consultation and information, patients should be informed about the potential risks of surgery (e.g., mortality, complication rate), as well as the anticipated hospital time (5). There are numerous studies

PURPOSE Despite a long-known association between annual hospital volume and outcome, little progress has been made in shifting high-risk surgery to safer hospitals. This study investigates whether the risk-standardized mortality rate (RSMR) could serve as a stronger proxy for surgical quality than volume. METHODS We included all patients who underwent complex oncologic surgeries in Germany between 2010 and 2018 for any of five major cancer types, splitting the data into training (2010-2015) and validation sets (2016-2018). For each surgical group, we calculated annual volume and RSMR quintiles in the training set and applied these thresholds to the validation set. We studied the overlap between the two systems, modeled a market exit of low-performing hospitals, and compared effectiveness and efficiency of volume- and RSMR-based rankings. We compared travel distance or time that would be required to reallocate patients to the nearest hospital with low-mortality ranking for the specific procedure. RESULTS Between 2016 and 2018, 158,079 patients were treated in 974 hospitals. At least 50% of high-volume hospitals were not ranked in the low-mortality group according to RSMR grouping. In an RSMR centralization model, an average of 32 patients undergoing complex oncologic surgery would need to relocate to a low-mortality hospital to save one life, whereas 47 would need to relocate to a high-volume hospital. Mean difference in travel times between the nearest hospital to the hospital that performed surgery ranged from 10 minutes for colorectal cancer to 24 minutes for pancreatic cancer. Centralization on the basis of RSMR compared with volume would ensure lower median travel times for all cancer types, and these times would be lower than those observed. CONCLUSION RSMR is a promising proxy for measuring surgical quality. It outperforms volume in effectiveness, efficiency, and hospital availability for patients.