A combination of enhanced recovery after surgery and prehabilitation pathways improves perioperative outcomes and costs for robotic radical prostatectomy

Personalized Digital, Multilevel Program for Preparation and Early Recovery After Urologic Surgery: A Prospective, Multicenter, Pre- and Postintervention Trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Electronic health can help improve perioperative outcomes and overcome organizational constraints related to human resources and health care-related costs. This study assesses the impact of implementing a digital smartphone app pathway with pre-/rehabilitation programs, checklists, and electronic patient-reported outcomes, on perioperative outcomes following urologic surgery.

METHODS

In this prospective, multicenter, pre- and postintervention trial, we evaluated the impact of an app-based digital pathway. The primary endpoint was the rate of postoperative complications. The secondary endpoints were hospital stay, readmission and same-day discharge rates, number of days out of hospital, prolonged care at discharge, unplanned visits, and patient satisfaction. All endpoints were collected within 3 mo after surgery.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

Overall, 415 consecutive patients were included in the analysis: 208 before and 207 after the digital program implementation. Overall complications were lower in the intervention group (15% vs 28.4%; p < 0.001), as well as the major complications (1.9% vs 5.8%; p = 0.048). A reduction was also noticed in unplanned visits (1.9% vs 12.5%; p < 0.001) and readmission (5.3% vs 10.6%; p = 0.048). The need for prolonged care after discharge was reduced (13% vs 26.9%; p < 0.001) in the intervention group. The median patient satisfaction was 8/10 (5-9) before and 9/10 (9-10) after implementing the app pathway (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The implementation of a digital pathway with pre-/rehabilitation, and checklists, was associated with better postoperative outcomes, faster recovery, and improved patient satisfaction.

Same-day Outpatient Robotic Surgery in Urology

Outpatient robotic urological surgery is safe and feasible for selected patients and can reduce the hospital length of stay and costs. Key factors include preoperative counseling, optimized perioperative care, and tailored patient selection, with outcomes comparable to those for inpatient procedures.

Personalized Mobile App-Based Program for Preparation and Recovery After Radical Prostatectomy: Initial Evidence for Improved Outcomes From a Prospective Nonrandomized Study

BACKGROUND

eHealth can help replicate the benefits of conventional surgical prehabilitation programs and overcome organizational constraints related to human resources and health care-related costs.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the impact of an optimized perioperative program using a personalized mobile app designed for preparation and recovery after radical prostatectomy (RP).

METHODS

We report on a series of 122 consecutive robot-assisted RP before and after the implementation of the betty.care app (cohort A: standard of care, n=60; cohort B: optimized program, n=62). The primary end point was continence recovery, defined as "0 or 1 safety pad per day" at 6 weeks after surgery. Secondary end points were length of stay, same-day discharge, complications, readmissions, and number of days alive and out of hospital within 30 days from surgery.

RESULTS

Both cohorts were comparable in terms of age, prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume, and disease aggressiveness. Intraoperative parameters (lymph node dissection, operative time, and bilateral nerve-sparing surgery) were comparable in both groups, except for blood loss, which was significantly higher in cohort B (182 vs 125 cc; P=.008). The 6-week continence rate was improved in cohort B in both univariable and multivariable analyses (92% vs 75%; P=.01). There were trends favoring cohort B for all secondary end points with a minimal 30% benefit compared with cohort A. Grade 2 or more complications occurred less frequently in cohort B (13% vs 3.2%; P=.042). Same-day discharge and readmission rates were 35% and 53% (P=.043), and 3.3% and 1.6% (P=.54) in cohorts A and B, respectively. Mean length of stay was reduced by 0.2 days in cohort B (0.58 vs 0.78 days; P=.10). The main limitation was the absence of randomization.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of a mobile app that provides a holistic approach to the perioperative period, integrating prehabilitation, rehabilitation, and remote monitoring, could lead to the improvement of important functional outcomes after RP and could replicate an on-site prehabilitation program. Multicenter validation is needed.

French AFU Cancer Committee Guidelines - Update 2024-2026: Prostate cancer - Diagnosis and management of localised disease

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the Oncology Committee of the French Urology Association is to propose updated recommendations for the diagnosis and management of localized prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature from 2022 to 2024 was conducted by the CCAFU on the elements of diagnosis and therapeutic management of localized PCa, evaluating references with their level of evidence.

RESULTS

The recommendations set out the genetics, epidemiology and diagnostic methods of PCa, as well as the concepts of screening and early detection. MRI, the reference imaging test for localized cancer, is recommended before prostate biopsies are performed. Molecular imaging is an option for disease staging. Performing biopsies via the transperineal route reduces the risk of infection. Active surveillance is the standard treatment for tumours with a low risk of progression. Therapeutic methods are described in detail, and recommended according to the clinical situation.

CONCLUSION

This update of French recommendations should help to improve the management of localized PCa.

Clinical impact of an enhanced recovery protocol implementation for nephrectomy and radical prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is a combination of multimodal pathways to improve surgical outcomes. Recommendations for radical cystectomy have been published by the ERAS society for the cystectomy but a lack of evidence is observed for urological procedures such as nephrectomy (Ne) and radical prostatectomy (RP). The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of enhanced recovery protocol implementation for Ne ad RP at our academic institution.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective, monocentric, comparative analysis, pre and post implementation of an enhanced recovery protocol for patients undergoing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy or nephrectomy (partial or total) for cancer. The primary endpoint was the mean length of stay (LOS). Secondary endpoints included 30-days readmission, postoperative complications, 90 days survival, and oncologic outcome at 6 months.

RESULTS

We included 264 patients between January, 2019, and December, 2020. Statistical analysis was performed separately by type of surgery. The LOS of patients included in the ERP protocol was decreased on average by 1.3 days IC95% [-2.50; -0.08], P<0.001 for nephrectomies and by 2.2 days IC95% [-3.72; -0.62] P<0.001 for prostatectomies, compared to non-ERP patients. There were no more re-admission, death or oncologic recurrence.

CONCLUSION

In our experience, ERP for oncological nephrectomy and prostatectomy reduced the length of stay, without increasing postoperative complications and readmission.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Attitudes and perceptions of cancer patients and healthcare providers towards prehabilitation: A thematic synthesis

PURPOSE

Prehabilitation, which is the process of enhancing functional capacity before undergoing surgery or other treatments, has been shown to improve cancer patients' outcomes. Patient and healthcare provider attitudes and perceptions are essential factors in the successful implementation of prehabilitation. The purpose of this systematic review is to synthesize qualitative evidence and explore the barriers and facilitators to prehabilitation implementation.

METHODS

From the earliest available date to October 2023, 7 databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and MEDLINE) were searched for a systematic review. Data were extracted, thematically analysed, and mapped onto the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B). The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool was used to assess the quality of the studies.

RESULTS

A total of 26 studies were included, involving 377 patients, 51 caregivers, and 156 healthcare providers. 16 factors were identified and mapped onto the COM-B model: reflective/automatic motivation, physical/social opportunity, physical/ psychological capability.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and healthcare provides identified a lack of reflective motivation and physical opportunities as the most significant barriers to engagement in prehabilitation. Personalized approaches, social support, and healthcare providers' engagement are key factors for prehabilitation. Future research should focus on developing effective interventions to enhance the uptake and sustainability of prehabilitation.

From an On-site Program to a Mobile App for Prehabilitation and Rehabilitation for Robotic Radical Prostatectomy: Lessons Learned from 5 Years of Experience, the COVID-19 Outbreak, and Comparison with Nationwide Data

Prehabilitation programs play a key role in optimizing patient experiences and outcomes after surgery. However, there are few data on robot-assisted radical prostatectomy, and prehabilitation programs may be challenging to launch and maintain over time for every patient. Here we report our 5-yr experience of an on-site prehabilitation program and its impact on patient and hospital outcomes. During the study period, we observed continuous improvements in the same-day discharge rate (from 0% to 26.4%), hospital stay (from 3 to 0.9. d), costs (-63%), days out of hospital within 30 d after surgery in our center, and in comparison to contemporary nationwide data. However, despite these advantages, maintenance and diffusion of this program could be challenging owing to the absence of incentive support and lack of human resources. This led us to develop two free-access mobile apps, available on the app stores for both patients and surgeons, that include checklists, remote monitoring, and multiple educational materials aimed at simplifying the widespread use of optimized perioperative pathways. PATIENT SUMMARY: We found that a prehabilitation program before surgery can help in optimizing patient outcomes after robot-assisted removal of the prostate. We translated this program into a mobile app available for every patient.

Prehabilitation in Urology: Trial Update

While prehabilitation is on the verge of being a standard of care, ENHANCE is a pragmatic trial to further improve treatment of urologic cancers with an indication for surgery. The PRIMER trial and a Belgian randomized study will focus on the feasibility of at-home prehabilitation.

Is It Worth the Sweat? Prehabilitation in Uro-oncology: A Mini Review

In several surgical specialities, exercise as part of a prehabilitation program enhances recovery. However, for uro-oncological patients, evidence up to 2020 did not demonstrate significant benefits in terms of postoperative complications or hospital length of stay (LOS). We reviewed the literature from 2020 to 2023 and screened 205 reports, of which four full texts were included. Two retrospective cohort studies, despite having potential confounding risks, indicated that preoperative exercise might reduce LOS. One of these studies also suggested a lower likelihood of complications. Present evidence hints at the potential benefits of embedding exercise in prehabilitation for uro-oncological patients, particularly for short-term functional results. However, evidence on a direct effect on postoperative complications and LOS is still inconclusive. Future research should prioritise identification of specific exercises (eg, anaerobic vs aerobic, strength training, endurance, or respiratory exercises) that yield the most cost-effective benefits. PATIENT SUMMARY: Recent studies suggest that exercising before surgery might help people with urological cancers to improve their short-term fitness. More research is needed to see if exercise before surgery shortens hospital stays or reduces complications.

Prehabilitation programs - a systematic review of the economic evidence

Introduction

Prehabilitation, which involves improving a patient's physical and psychological condition before surgery, has shown potential benefits but has yet to be extensively studied from an economic perspective. To address this gap, a systematic review was conducted to summarize existing economic evaluations of prehabilitation interventions.

Methods

The PRISMA Protocols 2015 checklist was followed. Over 16,000 manuscripts were reviewed, and 99 reports on preoperative interventions and screening tests were identified, of which 12 studies were included in this analysis. The costs are expressed in Pounds (GBP, £) and adjusted for inflation to December 2022.

Results

The studies were conducted in Western countries, focusing on specific surgical subspecialties. While the interventions and study designs varied, most studies demonstrated cost savings in the intervention group compared to the control group. Additionally, all cost-effectiveness analysis studies favored the intervention group. However, the review also identified several limitations. Many studies had a moderate or high risk of bias, and critical information such as time horizons and discount rates were often missing. Important components like heterogeneity, distributional effects, and uncertainty were frequently lacking as well. The misclassification of economic evaluation types highlighted a lack of knowledge among physicians in prehabilitation research.

Conclusion

This review reveals a lack of robust evidence regarding the economics of prehabilitation programs for surgical patients. This suggests a need for further research with rigorous methods and accurate definitions.

Assessment of routine same-day discharge surgery for robot-assisted radical prostatectomy

INTRODUCTION

It is important for robotic surgery to be cost-effective, especially by reducing the length of stay (LOS). Therefore, we developed a protocol for day-case robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). This study aimed to validate this as a safe practice of care and to assess the potential benefits to the hospital and patient.

METHODS

In this single-centre study, all patients booked for RARP between April 2022 and October 2022 were screened for suitability for day case. All tumour types were included. Exclusion criteria were a history of complex abdominal surgeries, salvage prostatectomy, body mass index (BMI) > 35 and patient living alone or > 150 km away from the hospital. All day-case RARPs were performed as a morning case with a protocol for review throughout the day with evening discharge if mobilising independently and eating/drinking well. The primary outcome of the study was success rate of discharge home on day of surgery (DOS) with secondary outcomes of readmissions and complications. A patient questionnaire was completed at home including both visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain and satisfaction rating.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients underwent day-case RARP over a 6-month period with minimum of 30 days of follow-up. 41/45 (91%) had successful DOS discharge home. The four admissions overnight were due to dizziness, low oxygen saturation, intraoperative complications and a diagnosis of COVID-19. There were no readmissions and no 30-day complications. The most common issues at home were catheter discomfort and constipation with low mean VAS pain score and low nausea reported. The overall patient satisfaction rating was very high at 4.8/5, and 97% said they would recommend to a family member. The cost saving for the hospital was 400 pounds per patient.

CONCLUSION

Day-case procedure is a viable, safe and efficient pathway for appropriately selected and counselled patients undergoing RARP.

[Prehabilitation prior to radical prostatectomy : A useful concept?]

Against the background of a continuous improvement of established treatment outcomes and the compatibility of health economic considerations, pre- and perioperative processes are constantly being developed and further optimized. In recent years, the concept of prehabilitation has gained increasing importance as a proactive approach to preparing patients for mostly surgical cancer treatment and improving their physical and mental health. Prehabilitation in oncology is a systematic process aimed at improving the physical, psychosocial, and nutritional condition of patients before and during cancer treatment. The goal of prehabilitation is to enhance patients' ability to cope with the physiological stress of cancer treatment and improve their overall health and well-being. In addition, prehabilitation has the potential to reduce costs for the healthcare system.

[Exercise therapy in prehabilitation : Current findings in urology]

BACKGROUND

Prehabilitation refers to interventions that take place before starting medical treatment. Prehabilitation exercise therapy aims to increase functional physical capacities to improve recovery and reduce side effects.

OBJECTIVES

To present the evidence and potential of prehabilitation exercise therapy in urological oncology.

METHODS

Compilation and explanation of study results.

RESULTS

Studies are limited and primarily focused on prostate and bladder cancer. Current data show positive effects on physical functioning and cardiorespiratory capacity. The majority of prehabilitation studies in prostate cancer focus on specific goals of physical functioning, particularly maintenance and recovery of urinary continence with inconsistent results.

CONCLUSIONS

There is preliminary evidence to improve cardiorespiratory fitness and overall physical functioning in urinary bladder and prostate cancer. Further in-depth research is needed to map the potential spectrum of prehabilitation exercise therapy in uro-oncology.

Multimodal prehabilitation in patients with non-small cell lung cancer undergoing anatomical resection: protocol of a non-randomised feasibility study

BACKGROUND

The preoperative period can be used to enhance a patient's functional capacity with multimodal prehabilitation and consequently improve and fasten postoperative recovery. Especially, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) surgical patients may benefit from this intervention, since the affected and resected organ is an essential part of the cardiorespiratory fitness. Drafting a prehabilitation programme is challenging, since many disciplines are involved, and time between diagnosis of NSCLC and surgery is limited. We designed a multimodal prehabilitation programme prior to NSCLC surgery and aimed to conduct a study to assess feasibility and indicative evidence of efficacy of this programme. Publication of this protocol may help other healthcare facilities to implement such a programme.

METHODS

The multimodal prehabilitation programme consists of an exercise programme, nutritional support, psychological support, smoking cessation, patient empowerment and respiratory optimisation. In two Dutch teaching hospitals, 40 adult patients with proven or suspected NSCLC will be included. In a non-randomised fashion, 20 patients follow the multimodal prehabilitation programme, and 20 will be assessed in the control group, according to patient preference. Assessments will take place at four time points: baseline, the week before surgery, 6 weeks postoperatively and 3 months postoperatively. Feasibility and indicative evidence of efficacy of the prehabilitation programme will be assessed as primary outcomes.

DISCUSSION

Since the time between diagnosis of NSCLC and surgery is limited, it is a challenge to implement a prehabilitation programme. This study will assess whether this is feasible, and evidence of efficacy can be found. The non-randomised fashion of the study might result in a selection and confounding bias. However, the control group may help putting the results of the prehabilitation group in perspective. By publishing this protocol, we aim to facilitate others to evaluate and implement a multimodal prehabilitation programme for surgical NSCLC patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The current study is registered as NL8080 in the Netherlands Trial Register on the 10th of October 2019, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8080 . Secondary identifiers: CCMO (Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects) number NL70578.015.19, reference number of the Medical Ethical Review Committee of Máxima MC W19.045.

Cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation prior to elective surgery: a systematic review of economic evaluations

BACKGROUND

Prehabilitation aims at enhancing patients' functional capacity and overall health status to enable them to withstand a forthcoming stressor like surgery. Our aim was to synthesise the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation for patients awaiting elective surgery compared with usual preoperative care.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, the CRD database, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO ICTRP and the dissertation databases OADT and DART. Studies comparing prehabilitation for patients with elective surgery to usual preoperative care were included if they reported cost outcomes. All types of economic evaluations (EEs) were included. The primary outcome of the review was cost-effectiveness based on cost-utility analyses (CUAs). The risk of bias of trial-based EEs was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool and the ROBINS-I tool and the credibility of model-based EEs with the ISPOR checklist. Methodological quality of full EEs was assessed using the CHEC checklist. The EEs' results were synthesised narratively using vote counting based on direction of effect.

RESULTS

We included 45 unique studies: 25 completed EEs and 20 ongoing studies. Of the completed EEs, 22 were trial-based and three model-based, corresponding to four CUAs, three cost-effectiveness analyses, two cost-benefit analyses, 12 cost-consequence analyses and four cost-minimization analyses. Three of the four trial-based CUAs (75%) found prehabilitation cost-effective, i.e. more effective and/or less costly than usual care. Overall, 16/25 (64.0%) EEs found prehabilitation cost-effective. When excluding studies of insufficient credibility/critical risk of bias, this number reduced to 14/23 (60.9%). In 8/25 (32.0%), cost-effectiveness was unclear, e.g. because prehabilitation was more effective and more costly, and in one EE prehabilitation was not cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

We found some evidence that prehabilitation for patients awaiting elective surgery is cost-effective compared to usual preoperative care. However, we suspect a relevant risk of publication bias, and most EEs were of high risk of bias and/or low methodological quality. Furthermore, there was relevant heterogeneity depending on the population, intervention and methods. Future EEs should be performed over a longer time horizon and apply a more comprehensive perspective.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020182813.

Institutional trends and safety profile of same-day discharge for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: A retrospective analysis

PURPOSE

To report the trends, predictors, and patient outcomes of same-day discharge (SDD) versus non-SDD for robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We queried our centralized data warehouse to identify men with prostate cancer who underwent RALP between January 2020 and May 2022. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics were compared between SDD and non-SDD. Then, we examined the utilization of SDD in a univariable logistic regression. Then, we fitted a logistic regression model to identify the predictors of SDD. To examine the safety profile of SDD, an inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) adjusted logistic regression was fitted to examine the effect of SDD on 30-day postoperative complications and readmissions.

RESULTS

Overall, 1,153 patients underwent RALP, of which 224 (19.4%) were SDD. The proportion of SDD increased from 4.4% in the fourth quarter of 2020 to 45% in the second quarter of 2022 (p < 0.01). The predictors of SDD were the facility where the surgery was performed (OR: 1.57; 95%CI [1.08-2.28]; p = 0.02) and whether a high-volume surgeon performed it (OR: 1.96; 95%CI [1.09-3.54]; p = 0.03). After IPTW, SDD compared to non-SDD was not associated with a difference in complications (OR: 1.07; 95%CI [0.38-2.95]; p = 0.90) or readmissions (OR: 1.22; 95%CI [0.40-3.74]; p = 0.72).

CONCLUSION

In our health system, the use of SDD is safe and currently composes of half of our RALP volume. With the advent of the hospital-at-home services, we anticipate that almost all our RALP cases will be SDD.

Robotic approach together with an enhanced recovery programme improve the perioperative outcomes for complex hepatectomy

Objective

Robotic surgery has more advantages than traditional surgical approaches to complex liver resection; however, the robotic approach is invariably associated with increased cost. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are beneficial in conventional surgeries.

Methods

The present study investigated the effects of robotic surgery combined with an ERAS protocol on perioperative outcomes and hospitalization costs of patients undergoing complex hepatectomy. Clinical data from consecutive robotic and open liver resections (RLR and OLR, respectively) performed in our unit in the pre-ERAS (January 2019-June 2020) and ERAS (July 2020-December 2021) periods were collected. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the impact of ERAS and surgical approaches-alone or in combination-on LOS and costs.

Results

A total of 171 consecutive complex liver resections were analyzed. ERAS patients had a shorter median LOS and decreased total hospitalization cost, without a significant difference in the complication rate compared with the pre-ERAS cohort. RLR patients had a shorter median LOS and decreased major complications, but with increased total hospitalization cost, compared with OLR patients. Comparing the four combinations of perioperative management and surgical approaches, ERAS + RLR had the shortest LOS and the fewest major complications, whereas pre-ERAS + RLR had the highest hospitalization costs. Multivariate analysis found that the robotic approach was protective against prolonged LOS, whereas the ERAS pathway was protective against high costs.

Conclusions

The ERAS + RLR approach optimized postoperative complex liver resection outcomes and hospitalization costs compared with other combinations. The robotic approach combined with ERAS synergistically optimized outcome and overall cost compared with other strategies, and may be the best combination for optimizing perioperative outcomes for complex RLR.

Prehabilitation in an ERAS program for endometrial cancer patients: impact on post-operative recovery

OBJECTIVES

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and prehabilitation programs are multidisciplinary care pathways that aim to reduce stress response and improve perioperative outcomes. However, literature is limited regarding the impact of ERAS and prehabilitation in gynecologic oncology surgery. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of implementing an ERAS and prehabilitation program on post-operative outcomes of endometrial cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery.

METHODS

We evaluated consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopy for endometrial cancer that followed ERAS and the prehabilitation program at a single center. A pre-intervention cohort that followed the ERAS program alone was identified. The primary outcome was length of stay, and secondary outcomes were normal oral diet restart, post-operative complications and readmissions.

RESULTS

A total of 128 patients were included: 60 patients in the ERAS group and 68 patients in the prehabilitation group. The prehabilitation group had a shorter length of hospital stay of 1 day (p<0.001) and earlier normal oral diet restart of 3.6 hours (p=0.005) in comparison with the ERAS group. The rate of post-operative complications (5% in the ERAS group and 7.4% in the prehabilitation group, p=0.58) and readmissions (1.7% in the ERAS group and 2.9% in the prehabilitation group, p=0.63) were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The integration of ERAS and a prehabilitation program in endometrial cancer patients undergoing laparoscopy significantly reduced hospital stay and time to first oral diet as compared with ERAS alone, without increasing overall complications or the readmissions rate.

Multimodal prehabilitation for major surgery in elderly patients to lower complications: protocol of a randomised, prospective, multicentre, multidisciplinary trial (PREHABIL Trial)

INTRODUCTION

The global volume of surgery is growing and the population ageing, and economic pressure is rising. Major surgery is associated with relevant morbidity and mortality. Postoperative reduction in physiological and functional capacity is especially marked in the elderly, multimorbid patient with low fitness level, sarcopenia and malnutrition. Interventions aiming to optimise the patient prior to surgery (prehabilitation) may reduce postoperative complications and consequently reduce health costs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a multicentre, multidisciplinary, prospective, 2-arm parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment. Primary outcome is the Comprehensive Complications Index at 30 days. Within 3 years, we aim to include 2×233 patients with a proven fitness deficit undergoing major surgery to be randomised using a computer-generated random numbers and a minimisation technique. The study intervention consists of a structured, multimodal, multidisciplinary prehabilitation programme over 2-4 weeks addressing deficits in physical fitness and nutrition, diabetes control, correction of anaemia and smoking cessation versus standard of care.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The PREHABIL trial has been approved by the responsible ethics committee (Kantonale Ethikkomission Bern, project ID 2020-01690). All participants provide written informed consent prior to participation. Participant recruitment began in February 2022 (10 and 8 patients analysed at time of submission), with anticipated completion in 2025. Publication of the results in peer-reviewed scientific journals are expected in late 2025.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04461301.

Cancer Prehabilitation in Practice: the Current Evidence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article serves to describe recent controversies in cancer prehabilitation including efficacy, dose, cost effectiveness, stakeholder input, and international implementation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Appropriate frequency, type, and timing have yet to be determined, but high intensity exercise is recommended. Costs are favorable when modeled and information on costs of real-world application are forthcoming. Patients are interested in and willing to attend cancer prehabilitation. Cancer prehabilitation research is spreading throughout the world. Cancer prehabilitation includes assessment of a newly diagnosed cancer patient's baseline fitness and targeted interventions to improve their health before surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation. Cancer prehabilitation improves fitness as measured preoperatively and improves outcomes postoperatively.

Framework, component, and implementation of enhanced recovery pathways

The introduction of enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) has led to a considerable paradigm shift towards evidence-based, multidisciplinary perioperative care. Such pathways are now widely implemented in a variety of surgical specialties, with largely positive results. In this narrative review, we summarize the principles, components and implementation of ERPs, focusing on recent developments in the field. We also discuss ‘special cases’ in ERPs, including: surgery in frail patients; emergency procedures; and patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19).

Role of prehabilitation following major uro-oncologic surgery: a narrative review

PURPOSE

Functional status and physical independence play a key role in terms of quality of life, access to treatment, and continuity of care. Surgery, a central component of cancer treatments, leads to detrimental effects on functional capacity, which can be peculiarly relevant in vulnerable patients undergoing major procedures. Prehabilitation is a multidisciplinary intervention that uses the preoperative period to prevent or attenuate treatment-related functional decline and its subsequent consequences. This paper narratively reviews the rationale and the evidence of prehabilitation for uro-oncologic surgery.

METHODS

A narrative review was conducted in August 2020, aiming to: (1) identify and discuss the impact of modifiable determinants of postoperative outcomes in urology and (2) review randomized controlled trials (RCT) exploring the role of preoperative exercise, nutrition, and psychological interventions in uro-oncologic surgery.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs on preoperative conditioning interventions met the inclusion criteria, focusing on radical cystectomy for bladder cancer (RC) and radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer (RP). There is strong evidence that poor physical, nutritional and psychosocial status negatively impacts on surgical outcomes. Single modality interventions, such as preoperative exercise or nutrition alone, had no effect on 'traditional' surgical outcomes as length of stay or complication. However, multimodal approaches targeting postoperative functional status have shown to be effective and safe.

CONCLUSION

There is initial evidence on the effectiveness and safety of multimodal prehabilitation in preserving functional capacity following RC and RP. However, to date, outcomes such as complications and length of stay seem to be not affected by prehabilitation.

Strategies for optimal perioperative outcomes in gastric cancer

Cancer and surgery represent a major stress on the human body. Any condition that prevents patients from tolerating the physiological stress is a risk factor for poor outcome. There is a need to identify these impairments early in the process with a simple screening, followed by assessments that provide a holistic picture of the patient. The proposed path of multimodal prehabilitation acts synergistically with enhanced recovery after surgery care to achieve optimal patient outcomes.

Predictors of prolonged admission after outpatient female pelvic reconstructive surgery

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine factors associated with prolonged hospital admission following outpatient female pelvic reconstructive surgery (FPRS) and associated adverse clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, we identified outpatient FPRS performed 2011-2016. Isolated hysterectomy without concurrent prolapse repair was excluded. Surgeries were classified as major or minor for analysis. The primary outcome was prolonged length of stay (LOS), defined as admission of ≥2 days. Secondary outcomes included complications, readmission and reoperation associated with prolonged LOS. We abstracted data on covariates, and following univariable analysis, performed backward stepwise regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 29645 women were included: 12311 (41.5%) major and 17334 (58.5%) minor procedures. A total of 6.9% (2033) had a prolonged LOS. On full cohort multivariable regression analysis, patient characteristics associated with prolonged LOS were older age (odds ratio [OR]: 1.1 per 10 years, confidence interval [CI]: 1.06-1.1, p < 0.001), frailty (OR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.3-2.6, p = 0.001), and Caucasian race (OR: 1.2, CI: 1.02-1.3, p = 0.024). Associated surgical factors included having a major surgical procedure (OR: 1.3, CI: 1.2-1.4, p < 0.001), use of general anesthesia (OR: 2.0, CI: 1.5-2.6, p < 0.001) and longer operative time (OR: 2.0, CI: 1.8-2.2, p < 0.001). The occurrence of any complication (10.3% vs. 4.7%, p < 0.001), hospital readmission (4.3% vs. 1.7%, p < 0.001), and reoperation (2.7% vs. 1.0%, p < 0.001) were more likely with prolonged LOS.

CONCLUSIONS

After outpatient FPRS, 6.9% of patients experience an admission of ≥2 days. Prolonged LOS is more common in patients who are older, frail and Caucasian, and in those who have major surgery with long operative time and general anesthesia.

Favorable Impact on Postoperative Abdominal Symptoms in Robot-assisted Radical Prostatectomy Using Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol

BACKGROUND/AIM

This study aimed to examine the effectiveness of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Moreover, this study focused on postoperative abdominal symptoms and compared the perioperative parameters between the ERAS and conventional groups in RARP patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on 37 consecutive prostate cancer patients who underwent RARP between January 2020 and September 2021. The ERAS and conventional protocols were received by 16 and 20 patients, respectively, excluding one patient with surgical complications.

RESULTS

The incidence and cumulative frequency of postoperative abdominal distention were significantly lower in the ERAS group (p=0.041 and p=0.039, respectively). Although not significant, the first flatus and defecation time tended to be shorter in the ERAS group (p=0.115 and p=0.074, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The ERAS protocol contributes to the reduction in postoperative abdominal distension for patients undergoing RARP.

Same Day Discharge Protocol for Robotic Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: the experience of a High-Volume Referral Center

Objective As the COVID-19 global pandemic continues, there is increased value in performing same-day discharge (SDD) protocols to minimize viral exposure and maintain the appropriate surgical treatment for oncological patients. In this scenario, we performed a prospective analysis of outcomes of our patients undergoing SDD protocol after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Material and Methods The SDD criteria included patients with no intraoperative complications, stable postoperative hemoglobin levels (compared to preoperative values), stable vital signs, normal urine output, ambulation with assistance and independently without dizziness, tolerance of clear liquids without nausea or vomiting, pain control with oral medication, and patient/family confidence with SDD. Patients older than 70 years, concomitant general surgery operations, multiple comorbidities, and complex procedures such as salvage surgery were excluded from our protocol. Results Of the 101 patients who met the criteria for SDD, 73 (72%) had a successful SDD. All SDF (Same day discharge failure) patients were discharged one day after surgery. Intraoperative characteristics were not statistically different with a median operative time of 92 (81-107) vs 103 (91-111) minutes for SDD and SDF respectively. Of the 28 SDF patients, the most common reasons for staying were anesthesia-related factors of nausea (35%), drowsiness (7%), patient/caregiver preference (25%), pain (14%), labile blood pressure (7%), arrhythmia (7%), and dizziness (7%). There was no significant difference in readmission rates, complication rates, or post-operative pain scores between SDD and SDF patients. Conclusions In our experience, SDD for patients undergoing RARP can be safely and feasibly incorporated into a clinical care pathway without increasing readmission rates. We were successful in 72% of cases due to coordinated care between anesthetics, nursing staff, and appropriate patient selection. We also believe that incorporating pre-and postoperative patient education and assurance is crucial to minimize their exposure to COVID-19 during the surgical treatment for prostate cancer.

Safety and feasibility of same-day discharge laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: a systematic review

Purpose

Day case or same-day discharge (SDD) pure laparoscopic or robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RP) has risen over the last few years with the aim of discharging patients within 24 h, reducing costs and length of stay, and facilitating return to active life. We perform a systematic review of literature to evaluate the feasibility of SDD RP.

Methods

A systematic review search was performed and the following bibliographic databases were accessed: PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, and Embase. This was carried out in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

Results

Based on the literature search of 509 articles, 12 (1378 patients) met the inclusion criteria (mean age: 63 years). All studies were unicentric except one. The mean SDD surgeries experience per centre was 66 cases .The means operative time and blood loss were 154 min and 126.5 ml, respectively. Mean SDD failure was 7.4%. Concomitant lymph node dissection was performed in 56.2%. The overall complication rate was 10.2% of cases; with a majority of Clavien grade I or II. Mean readmission rate after discharge was 5%. SDD generated cost reductions compared to inpatient surgery with variable differences according to the considered healthcare system.

Conclusions

Day-case RP is a safe and feasible strategy in selected cases with multicentre proofs of concept. Its widespread use in routine practice needs further research due to biases in patient selection. Implementation of peri-operative pathways such as ERAS and prehabilitation improves patient adherence to SDD.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00345-022-03944-1.

Early mobilization in enhanced recovery after surgery pathways: current evidence and recent advancements

Early mobilization is a crucial component of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways that counteract the adverse physiological consequences of surgical stress and immobilization. Early mobilization reduces the risk of postoperative complications, accelerates the recovery of functional walking capacity, positively impacts several patient-reported outcomes and reduces hospital length of stay, thereby reducing care costs. Modifiable barriers to early mobilization include a lack of education and a lack of resources. Education and clinical decision-making tools can improve compliance with ERAS mobilization recommendations and create a culture that prioritizes perioperative physical activity. Recent advances include real-time feedback of mobilization quantity using wearable technology and combining ERAS with exercise prehabilitation. ERAS guidelines should emphasize the benefits of structured postoperative mobilization.

National Trends in Length of Stay for Microvascular Breast Reconstruction: An Evaluation of 10,465 Cases Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database

BACKGROUND

Decreasing length of stay benefits patients and hospital systems alike. This should be accomplished safely without negatively impacting patient outcomes. The authors hypothesize that in the United States, the average length of stay for patients undergoing microsurgical breast reconstruction has decreased since 2012 without a concurrent increase in complication and readmission rates.

METHODS

The authors identified female patients who underwent microvascular breast reconstruction (CPT 19364) from the 2012 to 2018 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Trends in complication and readmission rates and length of stay were examined over 7 years. Multivariable logistic regression models and Mann-Kendall trend tests were used to evaluate associations between length of stay and complication and readmission rates.

RESULTS

A total of 10,465 cases were identified. The number of autologous microvascular breast reconstruction procedures performed increased annually between 2012 and 2018. Length of stay decreased significantly from 2012 to 2018 (from 4.47 days to 3.90 days) (p < 0.01). Minor and major complication rates remained constant, although major complications showed a decreasing trend (from 27 percent to 21 percent) (p = 0.07). Thirty-day readmission, surgical-site infection, and wound dehiscence rates remained consistent over the study period, whereas rates of blood transfusion or bleeding decreased (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Using a national sample from 2012 to 2018, the authors observed a significant decrease in length of stay for patients undergoing microvascular breast reconstruction without a concurrent increase in complication and readmission rates. Current efforts to reduce length of stay have been successful without increasing complication or readmission rates.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Risk, III.

A prehabilitation programme implemented before robot-assisted radical prostatectomy improves peri-operative outcomes and continence recovery

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of a routine, on-site, 1-day prehabilitation (PreHab) programme on peri-operative and continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All 303 consecutive RARPs performed between March 2018 and February 2020 since the routine implementation of PreHab were included in our study. PreHab was carried out according to the availability of the 1-day programme before the planned date of surgery (two sessions per month including four patients per session). The PreHab programme was implemented in 165 patients (54.5%). The primary endpoint was continence recovery, strictly defined as no safety pad use at 1 and 6 months. Secondary endpoints were peri-operative variables (blood loss, operating time, length of stay, transfusion, complications, and readmission rates). Comparisons were made according to whether the PreHab pathway was applied or not (PreHab+ vs PreHab-) in univariable and multivariable models.

RESULTS

The PreHab pathway was implemented for a stable proportion of patients over time (54.5%). The two cohorts were comparable in terms of preoperative and pathological features (P > 0.05). Length of stay was significantly shorter in the PreHab+ group (1.3 vs 1.9 days; P = 0.001). There was a trend towards fewer complications in the PreHab+ group (P = 0.061). Use of the PreHab pathway was independently correlated with higher continence rates at 1 month (37% vs 60%; P < 0.001) and 6 months (67.4% vs 87.3%; P < 0.001), even after controlling for age, body mass index, prostate volume, type of apical reconstruction, nerve-sparing surgery and lymph node dissection. The main limitation of the study was the absence of randomization.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience demonstrates that the PreHab programme is the major predictor of improved peri-operative outcomes and continence recovery after RARP, with sustainable benefits 6 months after surgery.

Annual nationwide analysis of costs and post-operative outcomes after radical prostatectomy according to the surgical approach (open, laparoscopic, and robotic)

OBJECTIVE

Annual countrywide data are scarce when comparing surgical approaches in terms of hospital stay outcomes and costs for radical prostatectomy (RP). We aimed to assess the impact of surgical approach on post-operative outcomes and costs after RP by comparing open (ORP), laparoscopic (LRP), and robot-assisted (RARP) RP in the French healthcare system.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data from all patients undergoing RP in France in 2020 were extracted from the central database of the national healthcare system. Primary endpoints were length of hospital stay (LOS including intensive care unit (ICU) stay if present), complications (estimated by severity index), hospital readmission rates (at 30 and 90 days), and direct costs of initial stay.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

A total of 19,018 RPs were performed consisting in ORP in 21.1%, LRP in 27.6%, and RARP in 51.3% of cases. RARP was associated with higher center volume (p < 0.001), lower complication rates (p < 0.001), shorter LOS (p < 0.001), and lower readmission rates (p = 0.004). RARP was associated with reduced direct stay costs (2286 euros) compared with ORP (4298 euros) and LRP (3101 euros). The main cost driver was length of stay. The main limitations were the lack of mid-term data, readmission details, and cost variations due to surgery system.

CONCLUSIONS

This nationwide analysis demonstrates the benefits of RARP in terms of post-operative short-term outcomes. Higher costs related to the robotic system appear to be balanced by patient care improvements and reduced direct costs due to shorter LOS.

The Relationship Between Preoperative Physical Activity With American Society of Anesthesiologists Score and Postoperative Length of Stay in Patients Undergoing Radical Prostatectomy

BACKGROUND

The relationship between preoperative physical activity (PA) and hospital length of stay (LOS) following radical prostatectomy (RP) is poorly understood. In addition, the relationship between PA and the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status score (ASA PS), an established prognosticator of surgical risk, has not been studied. The authors assessed the relationship between leisure-time PA (LTPA), ASA PS, and LOS in individuals undergoing RP.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from an institutional database. Ordinal logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between preoperative LTPA and physical status as indicated by the ASA PS. Binary logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between preoperative LTPA and LOS.

RESULTS

A sample of 1064 participants were included in the analyses. The participants in the highest preoperative LTPA quartile had 45% reduced odds (P = .015) of a worse ASA PS classification compared with participants in the lowest quartile. The participants engaging in vigorous LTPA preoperatively had 35% lower odds (P = .014) of a >2-day LOS following RP compared with participants who were not engaging in preoperative vigorous LTPA.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that total and vigorous preoperative LTPA is associated with improved preoperative American Society of Anesthesiologists scores and LOS following RP, respectively.

Comparison of enhanced recovery after surgery protocol and conventional approach after laparoscopic transperitoneal radical prostatectomy: a retrospective analysis

Background

Although open radical prostatectomy has been used in the treatment of localized prostate cancer for a long time, minimally invasive surgical approaches such as laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy have recently gained importance in order to improve postoperative results and shorten hospital stay. Although the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol was first defined for gastrointestinal surgeries in 2001, it has now been used in gynecological, orthopedic, thoracic and urological surgeries. In our study, we aimed to compare the results of the ERAS protocol with the conventional approach in patients who underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy.

Methods

There is a retrospective analysis of 70 patients who underwent laparoscopic radical prostatectomy at Kayseri City Hospital between May 2018 and January 2021. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for Windows, version 25.0 (IBM SPSS, Armonk, NY, USA). Seventy patients were included in the study. While 48 patients who underwent perioperative care with the traditional approach were included in the conventional group, 22 patients were included in the ERAS group. Age, comorbidities, preoperative PSA level, digital rectal examination findings, preoperative imaging, extra prostatic spread and lymph node involvement, location of tumors, time between biopsy and surgery, lymphadenectomy status, and histopathological findings of transrectal ultrasound biopsy and prostatectomy specimens were recorded for each patient. Initiation of enteral feeding, time to first defecation, duration of antibiotic use, ileus development rate and length of hospital stay (LOS) were compared for both groups.

Results

The mean age of 48 patients in the conventional group was 63.37 ± 7.01 years, while the mean age of 22 patients in the ERAS group was 66.36 ± 5.31 years (p = 0.080). Although the first defecation time was shorter in the ERAS group (4.75 ± 3.21 vs. 3.73 ± 2.12 days, p = 0.179), there was no statistically significant difference. Ileus developed in 10 (20.8%) patients in the conventional group and 2 (9.1%) in the ERAS group. Use of antibiotics in the postoperative period in the conventional group (5.83 ± 3.62 vs. 3.18 ± 2.42 days, p = 0.003) and LOS (7.92 ± 3.26 vs. 5.91 ± 2, 15 days, p = 0.011) were statistically significantly longer.

Conclusion

In summary, ERAS protocol is associated with short LOS, time to initiation of enteral feeding and duration of antibiotics use. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of ileus and time to first defecation between the two groups. Randomized prospective studies on heterogeneous and larger patient groups are needed to confirm our findings.

Prehabilitation Exercise Before Urologic Cancer Surgery: A Systematic and Interdisciplinary Review

CONTEXT

The Consensus on Therapeutic Exercise Training (CONTENT) scale assesses the therapeutic validity of exercise programs. To date, prehabilitation exercise programs for heath optimization before urologic cancer surgeries have not been assessed for therapeutic validity or efficacy.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically assess prehabilitation exercise programs before urologic cancer surgery for therapeutic validity and efficacy, informing discussion of best practices for future intervention.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review was performed using Ovid, Embase, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases through June 2020. The review included prospective (randomized controlled and uncontrolled) trials where patients were enrolled in prehabilitation exercise programs before urologic cancer surgery. The primary outcomes of interest included therapeutic validity and efficacy (measures of cardiorespiratory fitness and postsurgical outcomes). Studies were evaluated for the risk of bias. A narrative synthesis was carried out given heterogeneity in populations, interventions, and outcomes across studies.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Ten unique studies and two associated post hoc analyses met the inclusion criteria. Seven studies demonstrated therapeutic validity. Eight demonstrated a high risk of bias. All demonstrated significant improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness. Four of five studies evaluating quality of life observed significant improvements. To date, zero trials have demonstrated reduction in postsurgical complications, mortality, length of stay, or readmission rates following prehabilitation exercise interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

While prehabilitation exercise may result in improved cardiorespiratory fitness and quality of life, current studies have yet to demonstrate impact on surgical outcomes. When designing prehabilitation exercise programs for use before urologic cancer surgery, the therapeutic validity of the intervention should be considered. Future prehabilitation studies should employ standardized content rubrics to ensure therapeutic validity. Consensus is needed regarding the appropriate outcomes to adjudicate prehabilitation efficacy.

PATIENT SUMMARY

In this report, we looked at the effectiveness and quality of prehabilitation exercise programs before urologic cancer surgery. We found that these programs effectively improve presurgical fitness, but may benefit from the use of structured methodology and outcome assessment to understand their potential to improve surgical outcomes.

Potential for optimizing the perioperative care in robotic prostatectomy patients by adoption of enhanced recovery after surgery principles

Several benefits have been reported after applying the principles of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) into the perioperative care of patients undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). Nevertheless, there are still barriers. We aimed to identify the key areas by systematically surveying urology departments in Germany and Austria. A 27-question survey on the adoption of ERAS principles for the perioperative care of RARP patients was designed, in compliance with the guidelines on good practice in conducting and reporting of survey research. After positive testing for face and content validity, the survey was distributed via postal mail to 82 departments performing RARP. In total, 39 departments responded to our survey (response rate 48%). The ERAS adoption rates ranged from 21 to 97%, with nine ERAS principles being widely adopted (72-92% of the departments). The lowest adoption rates and, subsequently, the largest potential for optimization were detected for the preoperative nutrition counselling (21%), preoperative pelvic floor physiotherapy (54%), postoperative early initiation of nutrition (44%) and postoperative patient audit for further quality improvement (36%). High-volume centers performed more frequently a perioperative nutrition counselling (8/27; 30%) than low-volume centers (0/12; 0%; p = 0.036). The implementation of the ERAS principles into the perioperative care algorithm were medium-to-high, yet not optimal. Our real-world data assessment revealed four key areas showing low adoption rates (nutrition counselling, preoperative pelvic floor physiotherapy, early initiation of nutrition and patient audit), implying a great potential for further optimization.

Is it Worth Starting Sexual Rehabilitation Before Radical Prostatectomy? Results From a Systematic Review of the Literature

Background and Purpose: Sexual dysfunction (SD) is a frequent side effect associated with radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCa). Some studies have showed the benefit associated with preoperative sexual rehabilitation (prehabilitation) and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) for RP, but no clear clinical recommendations are available yet. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review on sexual prehabilitation prior to RP for patients with a localized PCa and analyze the impact on postoperative sexual health compared with the standard post-operative care. Methods: We performed a systematic review of the literature following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) recommendations. Results: Four randomized control trials and one retrospective comparative study were included in the analyses. Three of the five studies showed an improved EF recovery post-RP in the prehabilitation group compared to the standard of care represented by: higher International Index of Erectile Function 5 score (IIEF5) or IIEF score (p < 0.0001) and a higher percentage of patients reporting return of EF based on the Sexual Encounter Profile (SEP) (56 vs. 24%, p = 0.007). Self-confidence, therapeutic alliance, and adherence to treatment were stronger for patients with preoperative consultations (p < 0.05) and EF recovery was better in cases of a higher number of follow-up visits (OR 4-5 visits vs. 1:12.19, p = 0.002). Discussion: Despite heterogenous methods and high risks of bias in this systematic review, starting sexual rehabilitation prior to surgery seems to ensure better EF recovery. This prehabilitation should include information of both the patient and his or her partner, with a closer follow up and the use of a multimodal treatment approach that still remains to be defined and validated (oral medication, vacuum devices, pelvic floor muscle training, etc.).

Current Landscape of Nutrition Within Prehabilitation Oncology Research: A Scoping Review

Background: Prehabilitation aims to improve functional capacity prior to cancer treatment to achieve better psychosocial and clinical outcomes. Prehabilitation interventions vary considerably in design and delivery. In order to identify gaps in knowledge and facilitate the design of future studies, we undertook a scoping review of prehabilitation studies to map the range of work on prehabilitation being carried out in any cancer type and with a particular focus on diet or nutrition interventions. Objectives: Firstly, to describe the type of prehabilitation programs currently being conducted. Secondly, to describe the extent to which prehabilitation studies involved aspects of nutrition, including assessment, interventions, implementation, and outcomes. Eligibility Criteria: Any study of quantitative or qualitative design that employed a formal prehabilitation program before cancer treatment ("prehabilitation" listed in keywords, title, or abstract). Sources of Evidence: Search was conducted in July 2020 using MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL, and AMED. Charting Methods: Quantitative data were reported as frequencies. Qualitative nutrition data were charted using a framework analysis that reflects the Nutrition Care Process Model: assessment, intervention, and monitoring/evaluation of the nutrition intervention. Results: Five hundred fifty unique articles were identified: 110 studies met inclusion criteria of a formal prehabilitation study in oncology. prehabilitation studies were mostly cohort studies (41%) or randomized-controlled trials (38%) of multimodal (49%), or exercise-only (44%) interventions that were applied before surgery (94%). Nutrition assessment was inconsistently applied across these studies, and often conducted without validated tools (46%). Of the 110 studies, 37 (34%) included a nutrition treatment component. Half of these studies provided the goal for the nutrition component of their prehabilitation program; of these goals, less than half referenced accepted nutrition guidelines in surgery or oncology. Nutrition interventions largely consisted of counseling with dietary supplementation. The nutrition intervention was indiscernible in 24% of studies. Two-thirds of studies did not monitor the nutrition intervention nor evaluate nutrition outcomes. Conclusion: Prehabilitation literature lacks standardized and validated nutritional assessment, is frequently conducted without evidence-based nutrition interventions, and is typically implemented without monitoring the nutrition intervention or evaluating the intervention's contribution to outcomes. We suggest that the development of a core outcome set could improve the quality of the studies, enable pooling of evidence, and address some of the research gaps identified.

Same Day Discharge versus Inpatient Surgery for Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy: A Comparative Study

(1) Background: no study has compared outcomes of same day discharge (SDD) versus inpatient robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in homogenous cohorts. Our aim was to compare perioperative outcomes and urinary continence recovery between SDD and inpatient RARP in contemporary, comparable patients. (2) Methods: we included consecutive patients undergoing RARP between 2018 and 2020 (n = 376). Only patients eligible for SDD (no oral anticoagulant, distance home-hospital <150 km) and having >6-month follow-up were included (n = 180). All patients underwent RARP with or without lymph node dissection. Comparisons were performed between SDD (n = 42) and inpatient RARP (n = 138). Primary outcomes were 90-day complication and readmission rates and continence rates at 1 and 6 months. (3) Results: median patient age was 66.7 years. Median duration of surgery and blood loss was 134 min and 200 mL, respectively. Lymph node dissection and nerve-sparing procedures were performed in 76.7% and 82.2% of cases, respectively. Median follow-up was 19.5 months. No difference was seen regarding patient features, peri-operative outcomes, and pathology parameters between both groups. The proportion of SDD RARP was stable over time (23.5%). The 90-day unplanned visits, readmission and complication rates were 9.5%, 7.1%, and 19.0% in SDD patients versus 14.5% (p = 0.407), 10.1% (p = 0.560), 28.3% (p = 0.234) for inpatient RARP, respectively. Trends favoring SDD were not statistically significant. Continence rates at 1-(p = 0.589) and 6-months (p = 0.674) were comparable between SDD and inpatient RARP. The main limitation was the lack of randomization. (4) Conclusions: this multi-surgeon comparative study confirms the safety of routine SDD RARP in terms of perioperative and functional outcomes. Trends favoring SDD in terms of complications, emergency visits and readmission have to be confirmed.

[The role of the urology nurse in prehabilitation and same-day discharge robot-assited radical prostatectomy programs]

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this article is to explain the role of urology nurse in prehabilitation and same-day discharge programs for robotic radical prostatectomy.

METHODS

This article is based on the analysis of the literature and the experience of our center.

RESULTS

In order to prepare patients for outpatient surgery, urology nurse plays a key role during prehabilitation journeys. Two weeks before the operation, the healthcare teams (nurses, anesthetists, physiotherapists, etc.) organize workshops to explain to patients the operation course and post-operative care in order to allay any anxieties. Individual and group interviews, in specific workshops (compression stockings, urinary catheter, sexology) are organized in particular with urology nurse to answer all patients' questions. In association with enhanced recovery after surgery pathway, these programs improve the patient experience and satisfaction as well as peri-operative outcomes, and allows the development of an outpatient surgery program which currently represents approximately one third of surgeries.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of perioperative protocols including prehabilitation improves the early results of robotic total prostatectomy, but also the patient experience. The urology nurse has a key role to play during these patient education days and in the preparation, information, support and follow-up of the patient, since the prehabilitation journey until the patient leaves the outpatient clinic.