Preoperative Home-Based Exercise Prehabilitation in Patients Scheduled for Liver or Pancreatic Resection: The First Results of the PRIOR Study

Thickness of Biceps and Quadriceps Femoris Muscle Measured Using Point-of-Care Ultrasound as a Representation of Total Skeletal Muscle Mass

Generalized loss of muscle mass is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. The gold standard to measure muscle mass is by using computed tomography (CT). However, the aim of this prospective observational cohort study was to determine whether point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) could be an easy-to-use, bedside measurement alternative to evaluate muscle status. Patients scheduled for major abdominal cancer surgery with a recent preoperative CT scan available were included. POCUS was used to measure the muscle thickness of mm. biceps brachii, mm. recti femoris, and mm. vasti intermedius 1 day prior to surgery. The total skeletal muscle index (SMI) was derived from patients’ abdominal CT scan at the third lumbar level. Muscle force of the upper and lower extremities was measured using a handheld dynamometer. A total of 165 patients were included (55% male; 65 ± 12 years). All POCUS measurements of muscle thickness had a statistically significant correlation with CT-derived SMI (r ≥ 0.48; p < 0.001). The strongest correlation between POCUS muscle measurements and SMI was observed when all POCUS muscle groups were added together (r = 0.73; p < 0.001). Muscle strength had a stronger correlation with POCUS-measured muscle thickness than with CT-derived SMI. To conclude, this study indicated a strong correlation between combined muscle thickness measurements performed by POCUS- and CT-derived SMI and measurements of muscle strength. These results suggest that handheld ultrasound is a valid tool for the assessment of skeletal muscle status.

The effect of prehabilitation on postoperative complications and postoperative hospital stay in hepatopancreatobiliary surgery a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Increasing numbers of high-risk (older and/or frail) patients are undergoing hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery. Therefore, optimization of the patient's psychophysiological capacity by prehabilitation is rapidly gaining importance. The aim of this study was to collect all available evidence on prehabilitation in HPB surgery and determine its effects on postoperative complications and length of hospital stay.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. The electronic databases MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov, and the international clinical trials registry platform (ICTRP) were searched from inception to April 2020. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias and the ROBINS-I tool.

RESULTS

Seven articles including a total of 1377 patients were included in the quality analysis. A trend towards less complications and a shorter hospital stay was seen in the prehabilitation group, but current evidence fails to demonstrate a statistically significant difference between groups. Risk of bias in included studies was variable, and was generally scored as moderate.

CONCLUSION

Strong evidence for the beneficial effect of prehabilitation on clinical outcomes in HPB surgery is lacking. A trend towards less complications and shorter hospital stay was seen in the prehabilitation group.

A prospective cohort study evaluating screening and assessment of six modifiable risk factors in HPB cancer patients and compliance to recommended prehabilitation interventions

Introduction

Despite improvements in perioperative care, major abdominal surgery continues to be associated with significant perioperative morbidity. Accurate preoperative risk stratification and optimisation (prehabilitation) are necessary to reduce perioperative morbidity. This study evaluated the screening and assessment of modifiable risk factors amendable for prehabilitation interventions and measured the patient compliance rate with recommended interventions.

Method

Between May 2019 and January 2020, patients referred to our hospital for HPB surgery were screened and assessed on six modifiable preoperative risk factors. The risk factors and screening tools used, with cutoff values, included (i) low physical fitness (a 6-min walk test < 82% of patient’s calculated norm and/or patient’s activity level not meeting the global recommendations on physical activity for health). Patients who were unfit based on the screening were assessed with a cardiopulmonary exercise test (anaerobic threshold ≤ 11 mL/kg/min); (ii) malnutrition (patient-generated subjective global assessment ≥ 4); (iii) iron-deficiency anaemia (haemoglobin < 12 g/dL for women, < 13 g/dL for men and transferrin saturation ≤ 20%); (iv) frailty (Groningen frailty indicator/Robinson frailty score ≥ 4); (v) substance use (smoking and alcohol use of > 5 units per week) and (vi) low psychological resilience (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale ≥ 8). Patients had a consultation with the surgeon on the same day as their screening. High-risk patients were referred for necessary interventions.

Results

One hundred consecutive patients were screened at our prehabilitation outpatient clinic. The prevalence of high-risk patients per risk factor was 64% for low physical fitness, 42% for malnutrition, 32% for anaemia (in 47% due to iron deficiency), 22% for frailty, 12% for smoking, 18% for alcohol use and 21% for low psychological resilience. Of the 77 patients who were eventually scheduled for surgery, 53 (68.8%) needed at least one intervention, of whom 28 (52.8%) complied with 100% of the necessary interventions. The median (IQR) number of interventions needed in the 77 patients was 1.0 (0–2).

Conclusion

It is feasible to screen and assess all patients referred for HPB cancer surgery for six modifiable risk factors. Most of the patients had at least one risk factor that could be optimised. However, compliance with the suggested interventions remains challenging.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13741-020-00175-z.