Prehabilitation: The Emperor's New Clothes or a New Arena for Physical Therapists?

Multimodal prehabilitation and postoperative outcomes in upper abdominal surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis

The impact of multimodal prehabilitation on postoperative complications in upper abdominal surgeries is understudied. This review analyzes randomized trials on multimodal prehabilitation with patient and hospital outcomes. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched for trials on prehabilitation before elective (non-emergency) abdominal surgery. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed study quality. Primary outcomes of interest were postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) and all-cause complications; secondary outcomes included hospital and intensive care length of stay. A meta-analysis with random-effect models was performed, and heterogeneity was evaluated with I-square and Cochran's Q test. Dichotomous variables were reported in log-odds ratio and continuous variables were presented as mean difference. Ten studies (total 1503 patients) were included. Odds of developing complications after prehabilitation were significantly lower compared to various control groups (- 0.38 [- 0.75- - 0.004], P = 0.048). Five studies described PPCs, and participants with prehabilitation had decreased odds of PPC (- 0.96 [- 1.38- - 0.54], P < 0.001). Prehabilitation did not significantly reduce length of stay, unless exercise was implemented; with exercise, hospital stay decreased significantly (- 0.91 [- 1.67- - 0.14], P = 0.02). Multimodal prehabilitation may decrease complications in upper abdominal surgery, but not necessarily length of stay; research should address heterogeneity in the literature.

A review of perioperative immune-modulating and metabolic-modulating nutrition strategies for bowel resection surgery

Focused perioperative nutrition strategies have proven benefits on the outcomes for patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. In this brief article, we will review these strategies and the evidence to support them with a focus on gastrointestinal anastomotic healing. We will elaborate the risks and benefits of enteral feeds, immune- and metabolic-modulating formulas, prebiotics and probiotics, and prehabilitation in preparation for surgery. Additionally, we will discuss the role of fish oils (eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid) in the surgical patient and new data on specialized proresolving mediators in inflammation resolution. Finally, this article will consider the harmful impact surgical trauma has on the microbiome and the potential for perioperative dietary modulation to attenuate these negative effects.

Preoperative Rehabilitation Enhances Mental and Physical Well-Being in Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Injured Individuals: A Mixed Methods Study

CONTEXT

Rehabilitation after an anterior cruciate ligament injury is recommended to be started soon after the injury. When surgery is required, research supports the delivery of physiotherapy before anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (prehabilitation) to optimize recovery and positive outcomes. Individuals attending prehabilitation have never been questioned regarding their adherence to prehabilitation, perception of utility in meeting needs, upcoming events, or anticipated recovery goals.

DESIGN

Mixed methods cross-sectional study: Methods: 25 individuals before anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (43% of eligible individuals from 12 clinics during the delivery period) were surveyed on their mindset and recovery expectancies. Semistructured interviews conducted in 9 of 25 participants assessed their lived experience of prehabilitation.

RESULTS

Participants reported that preventing a reinjury (96% of responses) and feeling confident during daily activities about their knee (92%) were the higher rating expectations at this stage of their treatment course. Three themes were developed from the interviews and analyses. (1) Participants reported that prehabilitation was a period full of challenges with memories of the injury and uncertainties. (2) They viewed prehabilitation as a step to move forward by finding support and self-motivating. (3) They believed that prehabilitation would have positive impacts on the treatment outcomes. Participants were confident that prehabilitation would accelerate the recovery of muscle volume (88%) and strength (84%).

CONCLUSION

Participants had positive experiences of prehabilitation, aligning with the findings on functional outcomes in the existing literature on prehabilitation.

Get Back, a person-centred digital programme targeting physical activity for patients undergoing spinal stenosis surgery-a study protocol of a randomized feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Spinal stenosis is the most common reason for elective spine surgery, and the cardinal symptom is leg pain and discomfort when walking. Patients with spinal stenosis have a decreased level of physical activity and thereby an increased risk of poor health. Get Back is a person-centred digital programme that strives to support patients being physically active after surgery. The aim is to explore if Get Back, in its present format (referred to as Get Backfeasibility), is feasible and contributes to detectable change in variables related to intervention content.

METHODS

Thirty patients planned for decompression surgery due to central lumbar spinal stenosis who present with low physical activity, pain catastrophizing or fear of movement, will be included in a randomized feasibility study. All patients will be randomly allocated to either Get Backfeasibility or usual physical therapy. Get Backfeasibility aims to increase the patient's physical activity level by combining a person-centred and cognitive behavioural approach. It comprises 10 video and telephone sessions led by a physical therapist over 12 weeks (pre/postoperatively). Outcomes are treatment fidelity (treatment dose, adherence, and content), process feasibility (recruitment, intervention use, and acceptability of measurements and intervention), and variables related to the intervention content (steps per day, physical activity level, pain catastrophizing, fear of movement, and general self-efficacy). Treatment fidelity and feasibility data will be assessed during the full study period (12 weeks). Physical activity, physical capacity, and patient-reported outcomes will be assessed digitally at baseline (2 weeks preoperatively) and 11-12 weeks postoperatively. Variables related to the intervention content will be monitored weekly through a digital application. Feasibility data will be analysed descriptively and inferentially using a nonparametric approach, data from repeated measures will be displayed graphically and data from telephone interviews will be analysed using content analysis with a descriptive manifest approach.

DISCUSSION

The results will provide information on whether Get Back in its present format is feasible and can be evaluated for effectiveness in a larger randomized controlled trial, for patients with a low physical activity level and a high fear of movement who are undergoing decompression surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered at ClinicalTrails.gov 04/08/2023, registration no. NCT05806593.

Recommendations on the use of prehabilitation, i.e. comprehensive preparation of the patient for surgery

Prehabilitation is a comprehensive preparation of a patient for primarily surgical treatments. Its aim is to improve the patient'sgeneral condition so as to reduce the risk of complications and ensure the fastest possible recovery to full health. Thebasic components of prehabilitation include: improvement of nutritional status, appropriate exercises to improve functioning,psychological support, and help in eliminating addictions. Other important aspects of prehabilitation are: increasinghemoglobin levels in patients with anemia, achieving good glycemic control in patients with diabetes, treatment or stabilizationof any concurrent disorders, or specialist treatment associated with a specific procedure (endoprostheses, ostomyprocedure). This article organizes and outlines the indications for prehabilitation, its scope, duration, and the method to conductit. Experts of various specialties related to prehabilitation agree that it should be an element of surgery preparationwhenever possible, especially in patients with co-existing medical conditions who have been qualified for major procedures.Prehabilitation should be carried out by interdisciplinary teams, including family physicians and various specialists in thetreatment of comorbidities. Prehabilitation requires urgent systemic and reimbursement solutions.

Outpatient hospital utilization after single event multi-level surgery in children with cerebral palsy

PURPOSE

This study aimed to examine outpatient hospital utilization (number of specialties seen and number of visits to each specialty) in the year after single event multi-level surgery (SEMLS) in children with cerebral palsy (CP), and to determine if utilization differs across the medical center in the year after compared to the year before SEMLS.

METHODS

This retrospective cross-sectional study used electronic medical record data of outpatient hospital utilization in children with CP who underwent SEMLS.

RESULTS

Thirty children with CP (Gross Motor Function Classification System Levels I-V, mean age of 9.9 years) were included. In the year after surgery, a significant difference (p = 0.001) was found for the number of specialties seen, with non-ambulatory children seeing more specialties than ambulatory children. No statistically significant difference was found between the number of outpatient visits to each specialty in the year after SEMLS. Compared to the year before SEMLS, fewer therapy visits occurred in the year after SEMLS (p <  0.001) but significantly more visits to orthopaedics (p = 0.001) and radiology (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Children with CP had fewer therapy visits but more orthopaedic and radiology visits the year after SEMLS. Nearly half of the children were non-ambulatory. Examination of care needs in children with CP undergoing SEMLS is justified with consideration of ambulatory status, surgical burden, and post-operative immobilization.

A Person-Centred Prehabilitation Program based on Cognitive-Behavioural Physical Therapy for patients scheduled for Lumbar Fusion surgery: A mediation analysis to assess fear of movement (kinesiophobia), self-efficacy, and catastrophizing as mediators of health outcomes

Objective

To investigate whether early changes in fear of movement (kinesiophobia), self‐efficacy and catastrophizing were mediators of the relationship between allocation to the pre‐habilitation intervention and later changes in health outcomes.

Methods

The original pre‐habilitation trial (PREPARE, ISRCTN17115599) recruited 118 participants awaiting lumbar fusion surgery, half of whom received a prehabilitation intervention designed based on the modified fear‐avoidance model and half of whom received usual care. Mediation analysis was performed to test each mediator separately. Analysis was performed on each outcome of interest separately (Oswestry disability index, patient‐specific function, EQ general health and moderate/vigorous physical activity). Mediation analysis was carried out using PROCESS. Beta coefficients and bootstrapped 95% CIs were used to interpret the results.

Results

None of the potential mediators was found to mediate the relationship between allocation to the intervention and 3‐month scores on any of the health outcomes tested.

Conclusions

Screening patients for higher levels of catastrophizing and fear avoidance and lower levels of self‐efficacy could help ensure only the patients who are most likely to benefit from the intervention are included.

Significance

Prehabilitation interventions for spinal fusion surgery have been found to improve health outcomes for patients. Theory‐based interventions that target key mechanisms are more effective at improving outcomes than non‐theory‐based interventions. While no mediating effects were found for this particular intervention, the analysis suggests that the underlying theoretical model and treatment targets are appropriate and could drive improvement if more strongly targeted.

"I don't opt out of things because I think I will get a sore knee, but I don't expose myself to stupid risks either": patients' experiences of a second ACL injury-an interview study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this qualitative study was to describe women's experiences with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and a subsequent ACL rupture, and to identify potential facilitators and barriers for coping with rehabilitation after the second injury.

METHODS

Eight women between 17 and 36 years (mean 26, SD 6.5) who had experienced ACLR, followed by another ACL rupture, participated in the study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, and data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

One overarching theme, "Rehabilitation after a second ACL injury-A lifelong adaptive coping process", emerged from analyses. Undergoing a second rehabilitation is described as a process of adaptation, beginning with the first injury and still ongoing, more than 5 years later. Participants applied different coping strategies to adapt to these life-altering injuries, but the common denominator was of major life adjustments with no return to previous activity levels. Initially, after the reinjury, it was about coping with the catastrophe of the dreaded second injury. Over time, they accepted their "new" life and reset their recovery/rehabilitation goal not just as "return to sport" but rather as a "personal life goal".

CONCLUSION

Undergoing a second ACL injury is a long process that challenges the patient's coping skills. Given these results, rehabilitation programs need to be more person centred according to the patients-adjusted life goals.

The influence of cognitive behavioral therapy on lumbar spine surgery outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

As more patients undergo lumbar spine surgery, novel interventions may improve physical and mental health outcomes. Few studies summarize the benefit of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) among lumbar spine surgery patients. This study collects randomized control trial data to investigate the influence of CBT on patient reported outcomes among lumbar spine surgery patients.

METHODS

Our study used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and a medical library expert assisted in searching PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar. We calculated standardized mean differences (SMD) to evaluate the effect size of CBT versus control groups with a sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis included seven studies with a total of 531 patients. The majority of included studies evaluated lumbar fusion, with preoperative CBT performed by physiotherapists. The largest effects were observed for overall quality of life (SMD = 0.55 [95% CI 0.05, 1.05], p < 0.001, I² = 86.7%) and psychological outcomes (SMD = 0.61 [95% CI 0.28, 0.94], p < 0.001, I² = 89.7%) though disability and pain outcomes also favored CBT intervention. Included studies demonstrated low overall bias but large heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated negligible study design differences and revealed moderators including CBT session frequency and final follow-up duration (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Compared to usual care or alternative therapy control arms, CBT delivered the most improvement with overall quality of life and psychological outcomes. Among appropriately selected patients, CBT could improve perioperative disability, pain, quality of life, and psychological health following lumbar spine surgery.

Physical Performance Tests Provide Distinct Information in Both Predicting and Assessing Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Lumbar Spine Surgery

STUDY DESIGN

Secondary analysis of randomized controlled trial data.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine whether preoperative physical performance is an independent predictor of patient-reported disability and pain at 12 months after lumbar spine surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly used to assess clinical improvement after lumbar spine surgery. However, there is evidence in the orthopedic literature to suggest that PROMs should be supplemented with physical performance tests to accurately evaluate long-term outcomes.

METHODS

A total of 248 patients undergoing surgery for degenerative lumbar spine conditions were recruited from two institutions. Physical performance tests (5-Chair Stand and Timed Up and Go) and PROMs of disability (Oswestry Disability Index: ODI) and back and leg pain (Brief Pain Inventory) were assessed preoperatively and at 12 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Physical performance tests and PROMs significantly improved over 12 months following lumbar spine surgery (P < 0.01). Weak correlations were found between physical performance tests and disability and pain (ρ = 0.15 to 0.32, P < 0.05). Multivariable regression analyses controlling for age, education, preoperative outcome score, fusion, previous spine surgery, depressive symptoms, and randomization group found that preoperative 5-Chair Stand test was significantly associated with disability and back pain at 12-month follow-up. Each additional 10 seconds needed to complete the 5-Chair Stand test were associated with six-point increase in ODI (P = 0.047) and one-point increase in back pain (P = 0.028) scores. The physical performance tests identified an additional 14% to 19% of patients as achieving clinical improvement that were not captured by disability or pain questionnaires.

CONCLUSION

Results indicate that physical performance tests may provide distinct information in both predicting and assessing clinical outcomes in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery. Our findings suggest that the 5-Chair Stand test may be a useful test to include within a comprehensive risk assessment before surgery and as an outcome measure at long-term follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

A Person-Centered Prehabilitation Program Based on Cognitive-Behavioral Physical Therapy for Patients Scheduled for Lumbar Fusion Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Prehabilitation programs have led to improved postoperative outcomes in several surgical contexts, but there are presently no guidelines for the prehabilitation phase before lumbar fusion surgery.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to investigate whether a person-centered physical therapy prehabilitation program, based on a cognitive-behavioral approach, is more effective than conventional care in reducing disability and improving functioning after lumbar fusion surgery in patients with degenerative disk disease.

DESIGN

This study was a randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

The study took place at 2 private spine clinics and 1 university hospital.

PATIENTS

We prospectively enrolled 118 patients scheduled for lumbar fusion surgery.

INTERVENTION

The active intervention used a person-centered perspective and focused on promoting physical activity and targeting psychological risk factors before surgery. The control group received conventional preoperative care.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index score. Secondary outcomes were back and leg pain intensity, catastrophizing, kinesiophobia, self-efficacy, anxiety, depression, health-related quality of life, and patient-specific functioning, physical activity, and physical capacity. Data were collected on 6 occasions up to 6 months postoperatively. A linear mixed model was used to analyze the change scores of each outcome.

RESULTS

No statistically significant between-group difference was found on the primary outcome (disability) over time (baseline to 6 months). Among secondary outcome measures, a statistically significant interaction effect ("Group × Time") was seen for the European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions Questionnaire. The largest between-group difference on the European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions Questionnaire index was seen 1 week prior to surgery and favored the active intervention. The largest between-group effect sizes at the 6-month follow-up favored the active intervention, and were seen for physical activity intensity, steps per day, and the One Leg Stand Test. Both groups reached the minimal important change for the primary outcome and, in several secondary outcomes (pain intensity, back and leg; pain catastrophizing; anxiety; health-related quality of life [EQ5D VAS]), already at 8-week follow-up.

LIMITATIONS

The participants' preoperative level of disability was lower than normative values, which suggests selection bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Both interventions led to clinically important changes, but it is not clear what kind of prehabilitation program is the most effective.