Implementation of the pre-operative rehabilitation recovery protocol and its effect on the quality of recovery after colorectal surgeries

A systematic review and meta-analysis of high-quality randomized controlled trials on the role of prehabilitation programs in colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND

Prehabilitation is gaining popularity in colorectal surgery but lacks high-quality postoperative outcomes data. This meta-analysis explored whether prehabilitation impacts postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

In this meta-analysis, compliant with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses, we searched PubMed and Scopus through November 2022. High-quality randomized control trials involving adults who underwent colorectal surgery with/without exercise-based prehabilitation were included. The main outcomes were short-term postoperative morbidity, readmissions, and length of stay. Random-effect meta-analyses were performed, and statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic.

RESULTS

Seven high-quality randomized control trials comprising 1,225 patients were included. The median prehabilitation duration was 4 (2-4) weeks. Four studies compared prehabilitation and standard of care, and 3 compared prehabilitation and rehabilitation. Exercise-based prehabilitation did not reduce the odds of short-term complications (odds ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.27-1.40, P = .25, I2 = 68%) or readmission (odds ratio 1, 95% confidence interval 0.73-1.46, P = .85, I2 = 0%). The prehabilitation group had shorter length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference -0.2, 95% confidence interval -0.25 to -0.14, P < .0001, I2 = 43.3%). Prehabilitation and rehabilitation had similar odds of short-term complications (odds ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.56-1.89, P = .91, I2 = 33%), length of stay (weighted mean difference -0.16, 95% confidence interval -0.47 to 0.16, P = .33, I2 = 59%), and readmission (odds ratio 1.25, 95% confidence interval 0.28-5.56, P = .77, I2 = 52%). The only benefit of prehabilitation over rehabilitation was better 6-minute walking distance test results at time of surgery (weighted mean difference: -9.4 m; 95% confidence interval -18.04 to 0.79, P = .03, I2 = 42%).

CONCLUSION

Prehabilitation provided decreased postoperative length of hospital stay and improved preoperative functional outcomes, but not reduced odds of complications and/or readmissions. Prehabilitation and rehabilitation had similar clinical outcomes.

Towards a common definition of surgical prehabilitation: a scoping review of randomised trials

BACKGROUND

There is no universally accepted definition for surgical prehabilitation. The objectives of this scoping review were to (1) identify how surgical prehabilitation is defined across randomised controlled trials and (2) propose a common definition.

METHODS

The final search was conducted in February 2023 using MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of unimodal or multimodal prehabilitation interventions (nutrition, exercise, and psychological support) lasting at least 7 days in adults undergoing elective surgery. Qualitative data were analysed using summative content analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 76 prehabilitation trials of patients undergoing abdominal (n=26, 34%), orthopaedic (n=20, 26%), thoracic (n=14, 18%), cardiac (n=7, 9%), spinal (n=4, 5%), and other (n=5, 7%) surgeries. Surgical prehabilitation was explicitly defined in more than half of these RCTs (n=42, 55%). Our findings consolidated the following definition: 'Prehabilitation is a process from diagnosis to surgery, consisting of one or more preoperative interventions of exercise, nutrition, psychological strategies and respiratory training, that aims to enhance functional capacity and physiological reserve to allow patients to withstand surgical stressors, improve postoperative outcomes, and facilitate recovery.'

CONCLUSIONS

A common definition is the first step towards standardisation, which is needed to guide future high-quality research and advance the field of prehabilitation. The proposed definition should be further evaluated by international stakeholders to ensure that it is comprehensive and globally accepted.

Outcomes reported in randomised trials of surgical prehabilitation: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Heterogeneity of reported outcomes can impact the certainty of evidence for prehabilitation. The objective of this scoping review was to systematically map outcomes and assessment tools used in trials of surgical prehabilitation.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane were searched in February 2023. Randomised controlled trials of unimodal or multimodal prehabilitation interventions (nutrition, exercise, psychological support) lasting at least 7 days in adults undergoing elective surgery were included. Reported outcomes were classified according to the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research framework.

RESULTS

We included 76 trials, mostly focused on abdominal or orthopaedic surgeries. A total of 50 different outcomes were identified, measured using 184 outcome assessment tools. Observer-reported outcomes were collected in 86% of trials (n=65), with hospital length of stay being most common. Performance outcomes were reported in 80% of trials (n=61), most commonly as exercise capacity assessed by cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Clinician-reported outcomes were included in 78% (n=59) of trials and most frequently included postoperative complications with Clavien-Dindo classification. Patient-reported outcomes were reported in 76% (n=58) of trials, with health-related quality of life using the 36- or 12-Item Short Form Survey being most prevalent. Biomarker outcomes were reported in 16% of trials (n=12) most commonly using inflammatory markers assessed with C-reactive protein.

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial heterogeneity in the reporting of outcomes and assessment tools across surgical prehabilitation trials. Identification of meaningful outcomes, and agreement on appropriate assessment tools, could inform the development of a prehabilitation core outcomes set to harmonise outcome reporting and facilitate meta-analyses.

Can resistance prehabilitation training bring additional benefits in valvular cardiac surgery? protocol for a randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are a group of illnesses that include coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, congenital heart disease and deep vein thrombosis. Major surgery is often chosen as the treatment of choice for CVD. The concept of fast-track rehabilitation after surgery appeared in the 1970s. Participation in these exercise-based prehabilitation programmes may decrease postoperative complications and length of hospital stay. The primary aim of the present study is to evaluate whether the implementation of an additional resistance training (RT) prehabilitation protocol within cardiac exercises based prehabilitation can reduce intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, postoperative complications and hospital length of stay (LOS).

METHODS

A protocol of a prospective, parallel, randomised clinical trial includes 96 adult patients diagnosed with valvular pathology and who have been scheduled for surgery. The participants will be randomly assigned to two groups of 48. Control group will be treated with ventilatory and strengthening of respiratory muscles, and aerobic exercise. Experimental group, in addition, will be treated with RT of peripheral muscles. Both hospital stay and ICU stay will be assessed as main variables. Other secondary variables such as exercise capacity, quality of life and respiratory values will also be assessed. Quantitative variables will be analysed with a T-Test or ANOVA, or Mann Witney if the distribution is non-parametric.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

This will be the first controlled clinical study focused on adding strength exercise as an additional treatment during prehabilitation. The results of this study will focus on helping to improve rehabilitation and prehabilitation protocols, considering that it is essential to maintain pulmonary training, as well as the inclusion of peripheral exercises that help people with heart disease to be in a better physical condition in order to increase their participation and sense of quality of life.

Prehabilitation in Adults Undergoing Cancer Surgery: A Comprehensive Review on Rationale, Methodology, and Measures of Effectiveness

Cancer surgery places a significant burden on a patients' functional status and quality of life. In addition, cancer surgery is fraught with postoperative complications, themselves influenced by a patient's functional status. Prehabilitation is a unimodal or multimodal strategy that aims to increase a patient's functional capacity to reduce postoperative complications and improve postoperative recovery and quality of life. In most cases, it involves exercise, nutrition, and anxiety-reducing interventions. The impact of prehabilitation has been explored in several types of cancer surgery, most commonly colorectal and thoracic. Overall, the existing evidence suggests prehabilitation improves physiological outcomes (e.g., lean body mass, maximal oxygen consumption) as well as clinical outcomes (e.g., postoperative complications, quality of life). Notably, the benefit of prehabilitation is additional to that of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs. While safe, prehabilitation programs require multidisciplinary coordination preoperatively. Despite the existence of numerous systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the certainty of evidence demonstrating the efficacy and safety of prehabilitation is low to moderate, principally due to significant methodological heterogeneity and small sample sizes. There is a need for more large-scale multicenter randomized controlled trials to draw strong clinical recommendations.

Development and external validation of a clinical prediction model for predicting quality of recovery up to 1 week after surgery

The Quality of Recovery Score-40 (QoR-40) has been increasingly used for assessing recovery after patients undergoing surgery. However, a prediction model estimating quality of recovery is lacking. The aim of the present study was to develop and externally validate a clinical prediction model that predicts quality of recovery up to one week after surgery. The modelling procedure consisted of two models of increasing complexity (basic and full model). To assess the internal validity of the developed model, bootstrapping (1000 times) was applied. At external validation, the model performance was evaluated according to measures for overall model performance (explained variance (R2)) and calibration (calibration plot and slope). The full model consisted of age, sex, previous surgery, BMI, ASA classification, duration of surgery, HADS and preoperative QoR-40 score. At model development, the R2 of the full model was 0.24. At external validation the R2 dropped as expected. The calibration analysis showed that the QoR-40 predictions provided by the developed prediction models are reliable. The presented models can be used as a starting point for future updating in prediction studies. When the predictive performance is improved it could be implemented clinically in the future.

Effect of Preoperative Lifestyle Management and Prehabilitation on Postoperative Capability of Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The surgical intervention serves as the paramount and prevalent remedy for individuals afflicted with colorectal malignancies, with the significance of perioperative stewardship and convalescence being indisputable. Prehabilitation coupled with preoperative lifestyle modulation has demonstrated efficacy in patients subjected to certain classifications of abdominal procedures. However, the evidence pertaining to its impact on those battling colorectal cancer remains equivocal.

METHODS

A meta-analysis, grounded in pairwise contrast, of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was orchestrated, coupled with a systematic review, to probe the efficacy of preoperative lifestyle modulation and prehabilitation on patients' postoperative functionality and recuperation. An exhaustive exploration of 8 electronic databases and trial registries was undertaken to encompass all pertinent RCTs disseminated in English or Chinese from January 2012 through December 2022. Employing a random-effects model, we evaluated parameters such as the 6-minute walk test (6 MWT), complications, quality of life (QoL), aggregate and postoperative duration of hospitalization (tLHS and postLHS), and healthcare expenditure (HExp) for postoperative patients.

RESULTS

A total of 28 RCTs were incorporated into the systematic review and meta-analysis. Relative to conventional preoperative care, rehabilitation or preoperative lifestyle management was found to enhance postoperative 6MWT (SMD 1.30, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.29) and diminish the complication rate (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.69). Nonetheless, no significant discrepancies were observed in QoL (SMD 1.81, 95% CI -0.26 to 3.87), tLHS (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.15), and postLHS (SMD -1.46, 95% CI -3.12 to 0.20) between the groups. HExp could not be evaluated due to a lack of sufficient data for synthesis. Most pooled outcomes exhibited significant heterogeneity, urging a cautious interpretation. Subgroup analysis revealed that nutritional interventions could mitigate the incidence of complications, and preoperative exercise could improve tLHS and postLHS. A combined approach of physical, nutritional, and psychological intervention or prehabilitation proved superior to any single intervention in enhancing postoperative capabilities.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis delineated the efficacy of preoperative interventions on postoperative capabilities in patients with colorectal cancer, thereby offering evidence for clinical practice. It was concluded that preoperative interventions are unequivocally beneficial for postoperative functional recovery and the reduction of complication rates in patients with colorectal cancer. Nonetheless, the acquisition of more high-level evidence is still necessitated to further ascertain the effectiveness of this strategy for other patient groups and to establish its best practices. The heterogeneity in the pooled outcomes underlines the need for future studies to be more uniform in their design and reporting, which would facilitate more robust and reliable meta-analyses.

Prehabilitation programs for individuals with cancer: a systematic review of randomized-controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Prehabilitation programs focusing on exercise training as the main component are known as a promising alternative for improving patients' outcomes before cancer surgery. This systematic review determined the benefits and harms of prehabilitation programs compared with usual care for individuals with cancer.

METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to June 2022, and hand searched clinical trial registries. We included randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) in adults, survivors of any type of cancer, that compared prehabilitation programs that had exercise training as the major component with usual care or other active interventions. Outcome measures were health-related quality of life (HRQL), muscular strength, postoperative complications, average length of stay (ALOS), handgrip strength, and physical activity levels. Two reviewers independently screened the studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

Twenty-five RCTs (2682 participants) published between 2010 and 2022 met our inclusion criteria. Colorectal and lung cancers were the most common diagnoses. The studies had methodological concerns regarding outcome measurement, selective reporting, and attrition. Five prehabilitation programs were compared to usual care (rehabilitation): combined training, aerobic training, respiratory muscle training plus aerobic training, respiratory muscle training plus resistance training, and pelvic floor training. The studies provided no clear evidence of an effect between groups. We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence as very low, downgraded due to serious study limitations and imprecision.

CONCLUSION

Prehabilitation programs focusing on exercise training may have an effect on adults with cancer, but the evidence is very uncertain. We have very little confidence in the results and the true effect is likely to be substantially different from these. Further research is needed before we can draw a more certain conclusion.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

CRD42019125658.

Preoperative Immunocyte-Derived Ratios Predict Postoperative Recovery of Gastrointestinal Motility after Colorectal Cancer Surgery

The aim of this study was to assess the role of immunocyte-derived ratios (IDRs), such as the systemic immune-inflammation index (SII), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), and lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR), as markers for the postoperative recovery of gastrointestinal function following colorectal cancer surgery. A retrospective analysis was conducted on a consecutive cohort of 260 patients who underwent radical colorectal cancer surgery within the timeframe spanning from January 2016 to December 2022. Data concerning the postoperative recovery of gastrointestinal function included the I-FEED score, time to pass flatus, toleration for liquids in the first 48 h, and the need for nasogastric tube reinsertion in the immediate postoperative period. A special emphasis was allocated towards the examination of IDRs and their interrelation with the postoperative gastrointestinal functional parameters. The I-FEED score exhibited a positive correlation with the NLR, SII, and PLR. The univariate analysis indicated that all IDRs, multiorgan resection, hemoglobin and protein levels, regional nodal extent of the tumor (N), and obesity significantly affected nasogastric tube reinsertion. The multivariate analysis showed that the SII and N1 stages were risk factors for nasogastric tube reinsertion after colorectal cancer surgery. The SII and multiorgan resection were the only classifiers that remained significant in the multivariable analysis for the toleration for liquids. In summation, certain preoperative IDRs, such as the SII, PLR, and NLR, may hold potential as predictive determinants for postoperative gastrointestinal functional recovery following colorectal cancer surgery.

Prehabilitation for general surgery: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Prehabilitation seeks to optimize patient health before surgery to improve outcomes. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted on prehabilitation, however an updated synthesis of this evidence is required across General Surgery to inform potential Supplementary discipline-level protocols. Accordingly, this systematic review of RCTs aimed to evaluate the use of prehabilitation interventions across the discipline of General Surgery.

METHODS

This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023403289), and adhered to PRISMA 2020 and SWiM guidelines. PubMed/MEDLINE and Ovid Embase were searched to 4 March 2023 for RCTs evaluating prehabilitation interventions within the discipline of General Surgery. After data extraction, risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. Quantitative and qualitative data were synthesized and analysed. However, meta-analysis was precluded due to heterogeneity across included studies.

RESULTS

From 929 records, 36 RCTs of mostly low risk of bias were included. 17 (47.2%) were from Europe, and 14 (38.9%) North America. 30 (83.3%) investigated cancer populations. 31 (86.1%) investigated physical interventions, finding no significant difference in 16 (51.6%) and significant improvement in 14 (45.2%). Nine (25%) investigated psychological interventions: six (66.7%) found significant improvement, three (33.3%) found no significant difference. Five (13.9%) investigated nutritional interventions, finding no significant difference in three (60%), and significant improvement in two (40%).

CONCLUSIONS

Prehabilitation interventions showed mixed levels of effectiveness, and there is insufficient RCT evidence to suggest system-level delivery across General Surgery within standardized protocols. However, given potential benefits and non-inferiority to standard care, they should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

The effect of implementation of pain neuroscience education and rehabilitation exercise on post-operative pain and recovery after laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a prospective randomized controlled trial

PURPOSES

To optimize the efficacy of analgesia and post-operative recovery for patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery by integrating a composite psycho-somatic analgesia algorithm involving peri-operative rehabilitation exercise and pain neuroscience education into multi-modal analgesia.

METHODS

A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare conventional peri-operative analgesia (group CA) and the addition of rehabilitation exercise and pain neuroscience education into it (group REPNE) for patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Acute and chronic post-operative pain, characteristics of pain (pain catastrophizing, sensitization, and trends of neuropathic transformation), and quality of post-operative recovery calibrated with EuroQol Five Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) were investigated and compared between two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 175 patients consented to participate in this study. Compared with those receiving conventional analgesia (group CA, N = 89), patients in group REPNE (N = 86) reported reduced intensity of pain 24 h after surgery, less risk of pain catastrophizing and sensitization, and better quality of life during hospitalization recovery till 1 month after surgery (p < 0.05). No statistical difference was found for neuropathic transformation of post-operative pain or for the incidence of chronic post-operative pain (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of peri-operative rehabilitation exercise and pain neuroscience education into multi-modal analgesia provided better analgesic effect compared with routine practice for patients receiving laparoscopic colorectal surgery and also facilitated better post-operative recovery. This composite psycho-somatic algorithm for peri-operative analgesia merits further application in clinical practice.

Meta-analysis of the effect of laparoscopic surgery and open surgery on long-term quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of laparoscopic surgery and open surgery on the quality of life of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) in the growth period after the operation, and to provide a reference for surgical treatment decisions of patients with CRC.

METHODS

PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched through May 7, 2022 for clinical studies comparing the postoperative quality of life in CRC patients who underwent laparoscopic surgery with those who underwent open surgery. Data were extracted from eligible studies following rigorous quality review. All studies included patient numbers, surgery type, follow-up length, and quality of life scores.

RESULTS

A total of 6 studies were included, resulting in significantly better physical functioning scores with laparoscopic versus open surgery. (Standardized mean difference = 0.45; 95% CI (0.15, 0.75), P = .003). However, in general health, social functioning, bodily pain, vitality, quality of life index, Global Quality Scale, physical component summary and mental component summary, there was no telling difference between the 2 surgical therapies.

CONCLUSION

Compared with open surgery, laparoscopic surgery has weak advantages. There was no noteworthy difference in the long-term quality of life between the 2 surgical treatments for CRC patients. Whether laparoscopic surgery can bring more improvement to the quality of life of patients with CRC needs more high-quality clinical randomized studies to verify.

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in prehabilitation: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Inadequate study reporting precludes interpretation of findings, pooling of results in meta-analyses, and delays knowledge translation. While prehabilitation interventions aim to enhance candidacy for surgery, to our knowledge, a review of the quality of reporting in prehabilitation has yet to be conducted. Our objective was to determine the extent to which randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of prehabilitation are reported according to methodological and intervention reporting checklists.

METHODS

Eligibility criteria: RCTs of unimodal or multimodal prehabilitation interventions.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

search was conducted in March 2022 using MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane.

CHARTING METHODS

identified studies were compared to CONSORT, CERT & Modified CERT, TIDieR, PRESENT, and CONSORT-SPI. An agreement ratio (AR) was defined to evaluate if applicable guideline items were correctly reported. Data were analyzed as frequency (n, %) and mean with standard deviation (SD).

RESULTS

We identified 935 unique articles and included 70 trials published from 1994 to 2022. Most prehabilitation programs comprised exercise-only interventions (n = 40, 57%) and were applied before oncologic surgery (n = 32, 46%). The overall mean AR was 57% (SD: 20.9%). The specific mean ARs were as follows: CONSORT: 71% (SD: 16.3%); TIDieR: 62% (SD:17.7%); CERT: 54% (SD: 16.6%); Modified-CERT: 40% (SD:17.8%); PRESENT: 78% (SD: 8.9); and CONSORT-SPI: 47% (SD: 22.1).

CONCLUSION

Altogether, existing prehabilitation trials report approximately half of the checklist items recommended by methodological and intervention reporting guidelines. Reporting practices may improve with the development of a reporting checklist specific to prehabilitation interventions.

Effect of remote ischemic preconditioning on postoperative gastrointestinal function in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection

PURPOSE

Patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection have a high incidence of postoperative gastrointestinal dysfunction (POGD). Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) is an organ protection measure. The study investigated the effect of RIPC on postoperative gastrointestinal function.

METHODS

In this single-center, prospective, double-blinded, randomized, parallel-controlled trial, 100 patients undergoing elective laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive RIPC or sham RIPC (control). Three cycles of 5-min ischemia/5-min reperfusion induced by a blood pressure cuff placed on the right upper arm served as RIPC stimulus. Patients were followed up continuously for 7 days after surgery. The I-FEED score was used to evaluate the patient's gastrointestinal function after the surgery. The primary outcome of the study was the I-FEED score on POD3. Secondary outcomes include the daily I-FEED scores, the highest I-FEED score, the incidence of POGD, the changes in I-FABP and the inflammatory markers (IL-6 and TNF-α), and the time to first postoperative flatus.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients were enrolled in the study, of which 13 patients were excluded. Finally, 87 patients were included in the analysis, 44 patients in the RIPC group and 43 patients in the sham-RIPC group. Patients assigned to the RIPC group had a lower I-FEED score on POD3 compared with the sham-RIPC group (mean difference 0.86; 95% CI: 0.06 to 1.65; P = 0.035). And patients in the RIPC group were also associated with a lower I-FEED score on POD4 vs the sham-RIPC group (mean difference 0.81; 95% CI: 0.03 to 1.60; P = 0.043). Compared with the sham-RIPC group, the incidence of POGD within 7 days after surgery was lower in the RIPC group (P = 0.040). At T₁, T₂, and T₃ time points, inflammatory factors and I-FABP were considerably less in the RIPC group compared to the sham-RIPC group. The time to the first flatus and the first feces was similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

RIPC reduced I-FEED scores, decreased the incidence of postoperative gastrointestinal dysfunction, and lowered concentrations of I-FABP and inflammatory factors.

The effect of preoperative rehabilitation on the prevention of postoperative ileus in colorectal cancer patients

PURPOSE

Previous research suggests that the preoperative rehabilitation of colorectal cancer patients can reduce postoperative ileus. However, the evidence is insufficient and further research is warranted. This study aimed to investigate whether short-term preoperative rehabilitation, both on an outpatient and inpatient basis, can reduce the incidence of postoperative ileus after colorectal cancer surgery.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study that drew on data from multicenter electronic medical records. Patients with stage 1-3 colorectal cancer who underwent surgery and postoperative rehabilitation were included. The incidence of postoperative ileus was compared between patients who received short-term preoperative rehabilitation and those who did not. Propensity score adjustment using inverse probability weighting and subgroup analysis by type of surgery was performed.

RESULTS

Four thousand seventy-six eligible patients (43.4% female; mean age 75.1 ± 10.9 years) were included; 1914 (47.0%) received short-term preoperative rehabilitation. The preoperative rehabilitation group had a significantly lower incidence of postoperative ileus than the no preoperative rehabilitation group (pre-adjustment: 5.5% vs. 9.9%, p < 0.001; post-adjustment: 5.2% vs. 9.0%, p < 0.001). Therefore, preoperative rehabilitation was significantly associated with a lower incidence of postoperative ileus (OR: 0.554, 95% CI: 0.415-0.739, p < 0.001). In an adjusted analysis of surgery type subgroups, the incidence of postoperative ileus was significantly lower in the preoperative rehabilitation group for all types of surgery.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that short-term preoperative rehabilitation for patients with stage 1-3 colorectal cancer, both with inpatients and outpatients, significantly reduces the incidence of postoperative ileus.

Preoperative walking intervention did not appear to improve patient-reported postoperative recovery in older adults with frailty traits: Randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of a preoperative walking intervention on improving postoperative recovery in at-risk frail older adult patients.

STUDY TYPE

Unblinded, randomized controlled trial which assigned patients to intervention versus control.

POPULATION

Patients aged 60+ scheduled for surgery 3-8 weeks from randomization scoring 4+ on the Edmonton Frail Scale.

INTERVENTION

Preoperative walking enhanced by goal setting with an activity monitor and telephonic coaching.

MAIN OUTCOMES

Quality of Recovery 9-item instrument total score and a modified version of the Abdominal Surgery Impact Scale total score.

RESULTS

A total of 83 patients were analyzed. Postoperative recovery scores were similar in intervention vs control - Quality of Recovery-9 item instrument total score 14.1 vs. 14.1 (P = .94) and modified Abdominal and Surgery Impact Scale total score 82.8 vs. 79.2 (P = .93). Few intervention patients met their daily step count goals. Despite this, intervention patients improved average daily step counts significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative walking bolstered with activity monitor and remote coaching did not appear to lead to improved postoperative recovery in older adults with frailty traits. Further research is necessary to see if a similar intervention in specific surgery types or a more intense version of the intervention can improve recovery.