Physical and Psychological Health Behavior Changes During the COVID-19 Pandemic that May Inform Surgical Prehabilitation: a Narrative Review

Current landscape and support for practical initiation of oncological prehabilitation translatable to thyroid cancer: A position paper

Despite a growing body of evidence for the effectiveness of prehabilitation, the uptake of prehabilitation in Europe remains low. Contributing factors range from limited awareness and understanding of prehabilitation to a lack of supporting infrastructure and reimbursement challenges. In this position paper, the authors propose a new comprehensive definition of prehabilitation and identify differentiated thyroid cancer as a type of cancer particularly well-suited for prehabilitation. To support clinicians with the implementation of prehabilitation programs in their clinics, the authors discuss the following practical solutions: a) find the most appropriate prehabilitation program for each patient; b) raise awareness among peers; c) develop evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of prehabilitation; d) expand the interdisciplinary team; e) expand your network and make use of existing assets; f) utilize learnings from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Functional results and feasibility of a teleprehabilitation program in patients who are candidates for elective colorectal cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic

AIM

To assess the value of a prehabilitation program adapted to the current COVID-19 pandemic using a teleprehabilitation modality in a public Latin American hospital.

METHODS

The medical records of candidates for elective colorectal cancer surgery (CRC) and who completed a teleprehabiltation program were analyzed. Sociodemographic, clinical, and functional variables were analyzed, such as cardiorespiratory capacity with the sit-to-stand test (STST), independence in activities of daily living with the Barthel index, balance with the five-times STST (FSTST) and fatigue with Brief Inventory Fatigue (BFI). The feasibility of the program was analyzed in terms of recruitment, retention, user satisfaction, and reporting of adverse events.

RESULTS

Of 107 people recruited, 57 completed the program (54%, 68.78 ± 12.36 years). There was a significant difference in the BFI, FSTST, and STS 1-min scores after the intervention (p < .01), with an effect size (Cliff's delta) that varied between -.13 and .21. There were no differences in the Barthel index score. In relation to the viability of the program, 99% of patients referred for surgery could be recruited into the program, with 53% retention. Regarding user satisfaction with the program, seven items (77.7%) were rated as "very satisfied," and two items (22.3%) as "satisfied." No adverse events were recorded.

CONCLUSION

The structured prehabilitation program adapted to teleprehabilitation for CRC candidates for surgery was effective in optimizing functional results prior to surgery and was feasible to implement in a public hospital with limited resources during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Preparing for and Not Waiting for Surgery

Cancer surgery is an essential treatment strategy but can disrupt patients' physical and psychological health. With worldwide demand for surgery expected to increase, this review aims to raise awareness of this global public health concern, present a stepwise framework for preoperative risk evaluation, and propose the adoption of personalised prehabilitation to mitigate risk. Perioperative medicine is a growing speciality that aims to improve clinical outcome by preparing patients for the stress associated with surgery. Preparation should begin at contemplation of surgery, with universal screening for established risk factors, physical fitness, nutritional status, psychological health, and, where applicable, frailty and cognitive function. Patients at risk should undergo a formal assessment with a qualified healthcare professional which informs meaningful shared decision-making discussion and personalised prehabilitation prescription incorporating, where indicated, exercise, nutrition, psychological support, 'surgery schools', and referral to existing local services. The foundational principles of prehabilitation can be adapted to local context, culture, and population. Clinical services should be co-designed with all stakeholders, including patient representatives, and require careful mapping of patient pathways and use of multi-disciplinary professional input. Future research should optimise prehabilitation interventions, adopting standardised outcome measures and robust health economic evaluation.

Effect of Multimodal Prehabilitation on Reducing Postoperative Complications and Enhancing Functional Capacity Following Colorectal Cancer Surgery: The PREHAB Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Colorectal surgery is associated with substantial morbidity rates and a lowered functional capacity. Optimization of the patient's condition in the weeks prior to surgery may attenuate these unfavorable sequelae.

Objective

To determine whether multimodal prehabilitation before colorectal cancer surgery can reduce postoperative complications and enhance functional recovery.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The PREHAB randomized clinical trial was an international, multicenter trial conducted in teaching hospitals with implemented enhanced recovery after surgery programs. Adult patients with nonmetastasized colorectal cancer were assessed for eligibility and randomized to either prehabilitation or standard care. Both arms received standard perioperative care. Patients were enrolled from June 2017 to December 2020, and follow-up was completed in December 2021. However, this trial was prematurely stopped due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Interventions

The 4-week in-hospital supervised multimodal prehabilitation program consisted of a high-intensity exercise program 3 times per week, a nutritional intervention, psychological support, and a smoking cessation program when needed.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) score, number of patients with CCI score more than 20, and improved walking capacity expressed as the 6-minute walking distance 4 weeks postoperatively.

Results

In the intention-to-treat population of 251 participants (median [IQR] age, 69 [60-76] years; 138 [55%] male), 206 (82%) had tumors located in the colon and 234 (93%) underwent laparoscopic- or robotic-assisted surgery. The number of severe complications (CCI score >20) was significantly lower favoring prehabilitation compared with standard care (21 of 123 [17.1%] vs 38 of 128 [29.7%]; odds ratio, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.26-0.87]; P = .02). Participants in prehabilitation encountered fewer medical complications (eg, respiratory) compared with participants receiving standard care (19 of 123 [15.4%] vs 35 of 128 [27.3%]; odds ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.26-0.89]; P = .02). Four weeks after surgery, 6-minute walking distance did not differ significantly between groups when compared with baseline (mean difference prehabilitation vs standard care 15.6 m [95% CI, -1.4 to 32.6]; P = .07). Secondary parameters of functional capacity in the postoperative period generally favored prehabilitation compared with standard care.

Conclusions and Relevance

This PREHAB trial demonstrates the benefit of a multimodal prehabilitation program before colorectal cancer surgery as reflected by fewer severe and medical complications postoperatively and an optimized postoperative recovery compared with standard care.

Trial Registration

trialregister.nl Identifier: NTR5947.

Prehabilitation for Patients Undergoing Orthopedic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Importance

Prehabilitation programs for patients undergoing orthopedic surgery have been gaining popularity in recent years. However, the current literature has produced varying results.

Objective

To evaluate whether prehabilitation is associated with improved preoperative and postoperative outcomes compared with usual care for patients undergoing orthopedic surgery.

Data Sources

Bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL [Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature], AMED [Allied and Complementary Medicine], Embase, PEDRO [Physiotherapy Evidence Database], and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for published trials, and the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science, System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe, and European clinical trials registry were searched for unpublished trials from January 1, 2000, to June 30, 2022.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing prehabilitation with standard care for any orthopedic surgical procedure were included.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two independent reviewers screened trials. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Recommendations were determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system and the study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Pain, function, muscle strength, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL).

Results

Forty-eight unique trials involving 3570 unique participants (2196 women [61.5%]; mean [SD] age, 64.1 [9.1] years) were analyzed. Preoperatively, moderate-certainty evidence favoring prehabilitation was reported for patients undergoing total knee replacement (TKR) for function (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.70 [95% CI, -1.08 to -0.32]) and muscle strength and flexion (SMD, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.23-1.77]) and for patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR) for HRQOL on the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (weighted mean difference [WMD], 7.35 [95% CI, 3.15-11.54]) and muscle strength and abduction (SMD, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.03-2.02]). High-certainty evidence was reported for patients undergoing lumbar surgery for back pain (WMD, -8.20 [95% CI, -8.85 to -7.55]) and moderate-certainty evidence for HRQOL (SMD, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.13-0.78]). Postoperatively, moderate-certainty evidence favoring prehabilitation was reported for function at 6 weeks in patients undergoing TKR (SMD, -0.51 [95% CI, -0.85 to -0.17]) and at 6 months in those undergoing lumbar surgery (SMD, -2.35 [95% CI, -3.92 to -0.79]). Other differences in outcomes favoring prehabilitation were of low to very low quality of evidence.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence supported prehabilitation over usual care in improving preoperative function and strength in TKR and HRQOL and muscle strength in THR, high-certainty evidence in reducing back pain, and moderate-certainty evidence in improving HRQOL in lumbar surgery. Postoperatively, moderate-certainty evidence supported prehabilitation for function following TKR at 6 weeks and lumbar surgery at 6 months. Prehabilitation showed promising results for other outcomes, although high risk of bias and heterogeneity affected overall quality of evidence. Additional RCTs with a low risk of bias investigating preoperative and postoperative outcomes for all orthopedic surgical procedures are required.

Perspectives on the Direction of Cancer Prehabilitation in the Pandemic and Beyond

Growing attention has been placed on cancer prehabilitation in the recent years as the number of publications increase. The real-world application of prehabilitation remains heterogeneous and its implementation has been challenging during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the pandemic has also provided impetus for change-leveraging technology and digitalization. This paper will discuss the pre-existing models of care, adaptations that had taken place in the pandemic, the model of care in the author's institution, and the future direction of cancer prehabilitation.

Prehabilitation. An Interdisciplinary Patient-Centric Conceptual Framework

OBJECTIVES

To review the recent literature around patient-centric prehabilitation in oncology patients and propose a conceptual framework to inform development of interdisciplinary prehabilitation services leading to focused, individualized prehabilitation interventions.

DATA SOURCES

A review of recent peer-reviewed literature, national guidance, and government strategy on prehabilitation in oncology patients.

CONCLUSION

Patient- centric prehabilitation is key to improving patient's experiences of cancer throughout the cancer journey while improving population health and reducing financial costs. Successful personalized prehabilitation interventions are comprised of an interplay between individual interdisciplinary roles, as illustrated in the conceptual framework. The role of the nurse underpins this whole process in patient screening, assessment, implementation of the intervention, and patient reassessment, ensuring care is dynamic and tailored to patient need.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

The review has discussed the key role that nurses play in the process but warrants more research in the area. The conceptual framework provides a basis to develop interdisciplinary prehabilitation services underpinned by the nurse's role. The review advocates the use of educational interventions to equip all health professionals with prehabilitation knowledge to enable interdisciplinary prehabilitation services to be developed.