Multi-modal prehabilitation: addressing the why, when, what, how, who and where next?

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.

Quality of life following perioperative optimization with nutritional supplements in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery for cancer: A randomized, placebo-controlled feasibility clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Up to two thirds of patients presenting for abdominal cancer surgery are malnourished pre-operatively. Perioperative nutritional supplementation has been proposed to improve surgical outcomes, though its effect on quality of life (QoL) is not yet understood.

METHODS

A randomized controlled feasibility trial for perioperative nutrition among patients undergoing major abdominal cancer surgery was conducted. Participants in the intervention group received supplements for 30 days before surgery. Participants completed two QoL questionnaires (EORTC-QLQ-C-30 and FACT-G) at baseline, then 4 and 12 weeks postoperatively. Participants were compared between and within groups at baseline, Weeks 4, and 12 using t tests. Minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) were considered as a 10-point worsening from baseline.

RESULTS

Sixty-six participants were available for analysis in this study, including 33 in the intervention and 30 in the control arms. Baseline demographics were balanced between groups except for different rates of pancreas cancer (36% intervention vs. 9% control) and colorectal cancer (19% intervention vs. 34% control). At baseline, participants in the intervention group had lower overall QoL (59% vs. 77%, p = 0.01), role functioning (72% vs 88%, p = 0.045), and cognitive functioning (79% vs 90%, p = 0.047). Following surgery, role and physical functioning worsened in the control group, without significant differences between groups. Role functioning was persistently worsened at 12 weeks in the control group. The rates of MCIDs were similar between both intervention and control groups.

DISCUSSION

Perioperative nutrition was associated with preservation of QoL in the postoperative period following major abdominal cancer surgery compared to placebo.

SUMMARY

Among patients undergoing surgery for cancer, the majority present at high risk for malnutrition. In this placebo-controlled randomized trial among patients undergoing major abdominal surgery for cancer, preoperative nutrition supplementation was associated with the preservation of QoL in the postoperative period.

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.

Physical activity for cancer prehabilitation: A scoping review

This scoping review aims to synthesize the current landscape of physical activity in cancer prehabilitation and identify knowledge gaps. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and WEB OF SCIENCE for exercise interventions and observational studies that measured exercise or physical activity before cancer treatment from inception to January 20, 2023. Fifty-one articles from 44 unique studies were reviewed, including 32 intervention and 12 observational studies. Surgery is the only treatment modality that has been investigated. Included studies used heterogeneous exercise interventions and measures for physical activity. Colorectal and other gastrointestinal, lung, and urologic cancers are the most studied cancer types. Exercise intervention in cancer prehabilitation is highly feasible. The evidence for improved fitness, functional, psychosocial, and clinical outcomes is promising yet limited. Although research has increased recently, prehabilitation exercise remains a relatively under-investigated area in oncology. We have provided research directions towards an ideal cancer prehabilitation design in the real-world setting.

The effect of interventions on the incidence of surgical site infections in acute care settings: A systematic review

AIM

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are common healthcare associated infections with serious consequences for patients and healthcare organisations. It is critical that healthcare professionals implement prevention strategies to reduce the incidence of such infections. Prevention strategies are key to reducing the incidence of SSIs. The aim of this systematic review is to describe the effect of interventions conducted in acute care settings on the incidence of SSIs (primary outcome), length of stay, intensive care unit admission, and mortality rate (secondary outcomes).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This review is reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis checklist. A search was undertaken in Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO and Web of Science for studies published between January 2017 and March 2022. Studies that focused on interventions within acute hospital settings in patients undergoing elective surgery with the aim of reducing the incidences of SSIs were included. Due to heterogeneity results were synthesised narratively.

RESULTS

In total, 23 studies were included. Findings show that interventions that are effective in reducing the incidences of SSIs have multiple components including care bundles, stakeholder engagement, targeted surveillance and education. Few studies were identified that evaluated the effect of SSI prevention interventions on length of stay and mortality, and none assessed intensive care admission rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The included interventions varied widely, which made it difficult to draw definitive conclusions regarding specific interventions that reduce SSI. Multicomponent interventions and care bundles showed promise in reducing the occurrence of SSIs. Further studies should focus on standardised evidence-based interventions and compliance using randomised controlled designs.

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 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 before general surgery: Worth the effort?

Prehabilitation, or interventions before surgery aimed at improving preoperative health and postoperative outcomes, has various forms. Although it may confer benefit to patients undergoing general surgery, this is not certain. Furthermore, although it may yield a net monetary gain, it is also likely to require substantial monetary and non-monetary investment. The impact of prehabilitation is highly variable and dependent on multiple factors. Physical function and pulmonary outcomes are likely to be improved by most forms of prehabilitation involving physical and multimodal exercise programmes. However, other surgical outcomes have demonstrated mixed results from prehabilitation. Within this issue, the measures used for evaluating baseline patient biopsychosocial health are important, and collecting sufficient data to accurately inform patient-centred prehabilitation programmes is only possible through thorough clinical and laboratory investigation and synthesised metrics such as cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Although a multimodal approach to prehabilitation is the current gold standard, societal factors may affect engagement with programmes that require a significant in-person activity. However, this is weighed against the substantial financial and non-financial investment that accompanies many programmes. The overall effectiveness and optimal mode of intervention across the discipline of general surgery remains unclear, and further research is needed to prove prehabilitation's full worth.

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.

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.

What moves patients to participate in prehabilitation before major surgery? A mixed methods systematic review

BACKGROUND

Prehabilitation offers patients the opportunity to actively participate in their perioperative care by preparing themselves for their upcoming surgery. Experiencing barriers may lead to non-participation, which can result in a reduced functional capacity, delayed post-operative recovery and higher healthcare costs. Insight in the barriers and facilitators to participation in prehabilitation can inform further development and implementation of prehabilitation. The aim of this review was to identify patient-experienced barriers and facilitators for participation in prehabilitation.

METHODS

For this mixed methods systematic review, articles were searched in PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they contained data on patient-reported barriers and facilitators to participation in prehabilitation in adults undergoing major surgery. Following database search, and title and abstract screening, full text articles were screened for eligibility and quality was assessed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. Relevant data from the included studies were extracted, coded and categorized into themes, using an inductive approach. Based on these themes, the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour (COM-B) model was chosen to classify the identified themes.

RESULTS

Three quantitative, 14 qualitative and 6 mixed methods studies, published between 2007 and 2022, were included in this review. A multitude of factors were identified across the different COM-B components. Barriers included lack of knowledge of the benefits of prehabilitation and not prioritizing prehabilitation over other commitments (psychological capability), physical symptoms and comorbidities (physical capability), lack of time and limited financial capacity (physical opportunity), lack of social support (social opportunity), anxiety and stress (automatic motivation) and previous experiences and feeling too fit for prehabilitation (reflective motivation). Facilitators included knowledge of the benefits of prehabilitation (psychological capability), having access to resources (physical opportunity), social support and encouragement by a health care professional (social support), feeling a sense of control (automatic motivation) and beliefs in own abilities (reflective motivation).

CONCLUSIONS

A large number of barriers and facilitators, influencing participation in prehabilitation, were found across all six COM-B components. To reach all patients and to tailor prehabilitation to the patient's needs and preferences, it is important to take into account patients' capability, opportunity and motivation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021250273) on May 18th, 2021.

Multimodal Prehabilitation in Heart Transplant Recipients Improves Short-Term Post-Transplant Outcomes without Increasing Costs

(1) Background and aim: This study aimed to investigate the impact of prehabilitation on the postoperative outcomes of heart transplantation and its cost-effectiveness. (2) Methods: This single-center, ambispective cohort study included forty-six candidates for elective heart transplantation from 2017 to 2021 attending a multimodal prehabilitation program consisting of supervised exercise training, physical activity promotion, nutritional optimization, and psychological support. The postoperative course was compared to a control cohort consisting of patients transplanted from 2014 to 2017 and those contemporaneously not involved in prehabilitation. (3) Results: A significant improvement was observed in preoperative functional capacity (endurance time 281 vs. 728 s, p < 0.001) and quality-of-life (Minnesota score 58 vs. 47, p = 0.046) after the program. No exercise-related events were registered. The prehabilitation cohort showed a lower rate and severity of postoperative complications (comprehensive complication index 37 vs. 31, p = 0.033), lower mechanical ventilation time (37 vs. 20 h, p = 0.032), ICU stay (7 vs. 5 days, p = 0.01), total hospitalization stay (23 vs. 18 days, p = 0.008) and less need for transfer to nursing/rehabilitation facilities after hospital discharge (31% vs. 3%, p = 0.009). A cost-consequence analysis showed that prehabilitation did not increase the total surgical process costs. (4) Conclusions: Multimodal prehabilitation before heart transplantation has benefits on short-term postoperative outcomes potentially attributable to enhancement of physical status, without cost-increasing.

Implementation of a teleprehabilitation program for oncosurgical patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: perspectives and user satisfaction

INTRODUCTION

Many rehabilitation services in the face of the COVID-19 health emergency have had to adapt face-to-face interventions with remote care through teleprehabilitation. We aim to describe the implementation of a teleprehabilitation program during the COVID-19 pandemic for patients who are candidates for elective cancer surgery in a low-income Chilean public hospital. Secondarily, describe the perspectives and satisfaction of patients with the program.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Correspond to a descriptive and retrospective pre-habilitation telemedicine intervention study. Implementation was measured in terms of, recruitment rate, retention, dropouts, and occurrence of adverse events. User perspectives and satisfaction were evaluated through a survey composed of nine items on a Likert scale with five response options. Descriptive analyses were considered with mean, standard deviation, minimum, maximum, as well as absolute and relative frequency. For patients' perspectives on the program, a qualitative analysis was considered to describe them. The most relevant domains were identified in a text box to illustrate the results.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-five patients were referred to the teleprehabilitation program, with 99.3% recruitment, a retention rate of 46.7%, and no adverse events reported. In relation to user satisfaction, in general, patients showed good satisfaction with the teleprehabilitation program except items related to "access to the teleprehabilitation program connection" and "number of sessions." Thirty-three patients reported their perspectives on the intervention, represented in 12 domains.

CONCLUSION

It is possible to implement a teleprehabilitation program for oncosurgical patients in the context of preoperative care during the COVID-19 pandemic, with good user satisfaction. Likewise, this study provides guidance for other health institutions that wish to implement a teleprehabilitation program.

Prehabilitation versus no prehabilitation to improve functional capacity, reduce postoperative complications and improve quality of life in colorectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgery is the cornerstone in curative treatment of colorectal cancer. Unfortunately, surgery itself can adversely affect patient health. 'Enhanced Recovery After Surgery' programmes, which include multimodal interventions, have improved patient outcomes substantially. However, these are mainly applied peri- and postoperatively. Multimodal prehabilitation includes multiple preoperative interventions to prepare patients for surgery with the aim of increasing resilience, thereby improving postoperative outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of multimodal prehabilitation programmes on functional capacity, postoperative complications, and quality of life in adult patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO in January 2021. We also searched trial registries up to March 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adult patients with non-metastatic colorectal cancer, scheduled for surgery, comparing multimodal prehabilitation programmes (defined as comprising at least two preoperative interventions) with no prehabilitation. We focused on the following outcomes: functional capacity (i.e. 6-minute walk test, VO2peak, handgrip strength), postoperative outcomes (i.e. complications, mortality, length of hospital stay, emergency department visits, re-admissions), health-related quality of life, compliance, safety of prehabilitation, and return to normal activities.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Any disagreements were solved with discussion and consensus. We pooled data to perform meta-analyses, where possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs that enrolled 250 participants with non-metastatic colorectal cancer, scheduled for elective (mainly laparoscopic) surgery. Included trials were conducted in tertiary care centres and recruited patients during periods ranging from 17 months to 45 months. A total of 130 participants enrolled in a preoperative four-week trimodal prehabilitation programme consisting of exercise, nutritional intervention, and anxiety reduction techniques. Outcomes of these participants were compared to those of 120 participants who started an identical but postoperative programme. Postoperatively, prehabilitation may improve functional capacity, determined with the 6-minute walk test at four and eight weeks (mean difference (MD) 26.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) -13.81 to 65.85; 2 studies; n = 131; and MD 26.58, 95% CI -8.88 to 62.04; 2 studies; n = 140); however, the certainty of evidence is low and very low, respectively, due to serious risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. After prehabilitation, the functional capacity before surgery improved, with a clinically relevant mean difference of 24.91 metres (95% CI 11.24 to 38.57; 3 studies; n = 225). The certainty of evidence was moderate due to downgrading for serious risk of bias. The effects of prehabilitation on the number of complications (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.29; 3 studies; n = 250), emergency department visits (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.32; 3 studies; n = 250) and re-admissions (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.65; 3 studies; n = 250) were small or even trivial. The certainty of evidence was low due to downgrading for serious risk of bias and imprecision. The effects on VO2peak, handgrip strength, length of hospital stay, mortality rate, health-related quality of life, return to normal activities, safety of the programme, and compliance rate could not be analysed quantitatively due to missing or insufficient data. The included studies did not report a difference between groups for health-related quality of life and length of hospital stay. Data on remaining outcomes were not reported or were reported inadequately in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prehabilitation may result in an improved functional capacity, determined with the 6-minute walk test both preoperatively and postoperatively. A solid effect on the number of omplications, postoperative emergency department visits and re-admissions could not be established. The certainty of evidence ranges from moderate to very low, due to downgrading for serious risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency. In addition, only three heterogeneous studies were included in this review. Therefore, the findings of this review should be interpreted with caution. Numerous relevant RCTs are ongoing and will be included in a future update of this review.

Prehabilitation for patients with colorectal cancer: a snapshot of current daily practice in Dutch hospitals

BACKGROUND

Multimodal prehabilitation programmes are increasingly being imbedded in colorectal cancer (CRC) pathways to enhance the patient's recovery after surgery. However, there is no (inter)national consensus on the content or design of such a programme. This study aimed to evaluate the current practice and opinion regarding preoperative screening and prehabilitation for patients undergoing surgery for CRC throughout the Netherlands.

METHODS

All regular Dutch hospitals offering colorectal cancer surgery were included. An online survey was sent to one representative colorectal surgeon per hospital. Descriptive statistics were used for analyses.

RESULTS

Response rate was 100% (n = 69). Routine preoperative screening of patients with CRC for frailty, diminished nutritional status and anaemia was the standard of care in nearly all Dutch hospitals (97%, 93% and 94%, respectively). Some form of prehabilitation was provided in 46 hospitals (67%) of which more than 80% addressed nutritional status, frailty, physical status and anaemia. All but two of the remaining hospitals were willing to adopt prehabilitation. The majority of the hospitals offered prehabilitation to specific subgroups of patients with CRC, such as the elderly (41%), the frail (71%) or high-risk patients (57%). There was high variability in the setting, design and content of the prehabilitation programmes.

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas preoperative screening is sufficiently incorporated in Dutch hospitals, standardised enhancement of the patient's condition in the context of multimodal prehabilitation seems to be challenging. This study presents an overview of current clinical practice in the Netherlands. Uniform clinical prehabilitation guidelines are vital to diminish heterogeneity in programmes and to produce useful data to enable a nationwide implementation of an evidence-based prehabilitation programme.

[Nutritional supportive care in the course of patients with esophagogastric cancers]

Supportive care plays a central role in the management of patients with esophagogastric cancers, at all disease stages. Malnutrition has a high prevalence in this population, reaching up to 60 % of the patients. Sarcopenia and cachexia are also common. These complications have negative impact on functional abilities, quality of life and overall survival. They impair anti-tumor treatments effectiveness and increase their toxicity. Early detection and management are needed, before reaching advanced stages, which are refractory to therapeutic interventions. Specific nutritional support is recommended, relying on different nutritional support tools (dietetic counseling, oral supplements, artificial nutrition), depending on the clinical situation. When artificial nutrition is recommended, enteral nutrition (nasogastric tube, gastrostomy or jejunostomy) should be preferred. When enteral nutrition is impossible or insufficient, parenteral nutrition could be necessary. For patients with advanced esophagogastric cancers, digestive prostheses and decompressive radiation therapy may have a symptomatic benefit on dysphagia. Adapted physical activity is also recommended at all stages of cancer care and ongoing clinical trials will help to specify its modalities and to optimize its place in the therapeutic strategy. Finally, psychosocial support could be useful. A combined approach of these different interventions on the nutritional, physical and psychological aspects is beneficial for patients with esophagogastric cancers. This multimodal and multidisciplinary approach applies to both the early stages of the disease, with prehabilitation and/or rehabilitation to reduce perioperative morbidity and mortality and the advanced stages, with a benefit on survival and quality of life, in parallel with anti-tumor treatments.

Surgical Prehabilitation in Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancers: Impact of Unimodal and Multimodal Programs on Postoperative Outcomes and Prospects for New Therapeutic Strategies-A Systematic Review

The advantages of prehabilitation in surgical oncology are unclear. This systematic review aims to (1) evaluate the latest evidence of preoperative prehabilitation interventions on postoperative outcomes after gastrointestinal (GI) cancer surgery and (2) discuss new potential therapeutic targets as part of prehabilitation. Randomized controlled trials published between January 2017 and August 2022 were identified through Medline. The population of interest was oncological patients undergoing GI surgery. Trials were considered if they evaluated prehabilitation interventions (nutrition, physical activity, probiotics and symbiotics, fecal microbiota transplantation, and ghrelin receptor agonists), alone or combined, on postoperative outcomes. Out of 1180 records initially identified, 15 studies were retained. Evidence for the benefits of unimodal interventions was limited. Preoperative multimodal programs, including nutrition and physical activity with or without psychological support, showed improvement in postoperative physical performance, muscle strength, and quality of life in patients with esophagogastric and colorectal cancers. However, there was no benefit for postoperative complications, hospital length of stay, hospital readmissions, and mortality. No trial evaluated the impact of fecal microbiota transplantation or oral ghrelin receptor agonists. Further studies are needed to confirm our findings, identify patients who are more likely to benefit from surgical prehabilitation, and harmonize interventions.

Prehabilitation before elective coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this scoping review was to identify and map existing preoperative interventions, referred to as prehabilitation, in adult patients at home awaiting elective coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. This review also sought to report feasibility and patient experiences to shape clinical practice and underpin a future systematic review.

INTRODUCTION

As patients age, comorbidities become more common. Strategies to improve postoperative outcomes and to accelerate recovery are required in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. Prehabilitation refers to a proactive process of increasing functional capacity before surgery to improve the patient's ability to withstand upcoming physiologic stress and, thus, avoid postoperative complications.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Studies that included adult patients awaiting coronary artery bypass grafting surgery at home and that described interventions optimizing preoperative physical and psychological health in any setting were included.

METHODS

The JBI methodology for conducting scoping reviews was used to identify relevant studies in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, SweMed+, PsycINFO, and PEDro. Gray literature was identified searching Google Scholar, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, MedNar, OpenGrey, NICE Evidence search, and SIGN. Studies in Danish, English, German, Norwegian, and Swedish were considered for inclusion, with no geographical or cultural limitations, or date restrictions. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts, and studies meeting the inclusion criteria were imported into Covidence. Sixty-seven studies from November 1987 to September 2022 were included. The data extraction tool used for the included papers was developed in accordance with the review questions and tested for adequacy and comprehensiveness with the first 5 studies by the same 2 independent reviewers. The tool was then edited to best reflect the review questions. Extracted findings are described and supported by figures and tables.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven studies were eligible for inclusion, representing 28,553 participants. Analyses of extracted data identified various preoperative interventions for optimizing postoperative and psychological outcomes for adult patients awaiting elective coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. Based on similarities, interventions were grouped into 5 categories. Eighteen studies reported on multimodal interventions, 17 reported on psychological interventions, 14 on physical training interventions, 13 on education interventions, and 5 on oral health interventions.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review provides a comprehensive summary of strategies that can be applied when developing a prehabilitation program for patients awaiting elective coronary artery bypass surgery. Although prehabilitation has been tested extensively and appears to be feasible, available evidence is mostly based on small studies. For patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting to derive benefit from prehabilitation, methodologically robust clinical trials and knowledge synthesis are required to identify optimal strategies for patient selection, intervention design, adherence, and intervention duration. Future research should also consider the cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation interventions before surgery. Finally, there is a need for more qualitative studies examining whether individual interventions are meaningful and appropriate to patients, which is an important factor if interventions are to be effective.

[Are we missing the first step? : An online expert survey in a mixed methods design on current state analysis of perioperative risk estimation and preoperative preparation of patients over 65 years old in Germany]

BACKGROUND

The proportion of patients over 65 years of age in surgical care is increasing in Germany. Frailty represents a relevant problem in the perioperative care of older patients and has a negative impact on the postoperative outcome. The individual degree of frailty can be influenced. Multimodal prehabilitation concepts can contribute to improving the degree of frailty in the perioperative care of affected patients. As a multidimensional syndrome, frailty is related to the aging process, affects multiple organ systems and typically leads to increased vulnerability to internal and external stressors. This is accompanied by a decrease in homeostatic reserves and resilience, which implies an increased risk of several adverse health outcomes, such as loss of physical function and quality of life. Prehabilitation is described as a multimodal concept to prepare patients preoperatively in the best possible way for elective surgical procedures, thereby minimizing postoperative complications and improving the patients' outcome.

METHOD

Current state analysis of perioperative care of patients over the age of 65 years in relation to frailty assessment and the use of prehabilitation concepts. Conducting a multicenter online survey of anesthesiology experts (n = 189) in German anesthesiology departments. Survey of the preoperative preparation and assessment routine in patients aged 65 years and over using a mixed methods design questionnaire.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to demonstrate the applied assessments and measures taken for specific perioperative risk assessment and preoperative preparation of patients aged 65 years and over.

RESULTS

Specific risk assessments or additional preoperative preparation of patients older than 65 years are currently not carried out routinely. The preoperative risk assessment and preparation usually focus on ascertaining the patient's previous illnesses or diseases. Assessment instruments for assessing frailty and multimodal prehabilitation concepts are not used in clinical practice in a noteworthy quantity.

CONCLUSION

In German clinical practice frailty assessment and structured prehabilitation approaches in perioperative care of older patients are not broadly known or established. Multimodal prehabilitation concepts can positively influence the outcome of older patients. To this end, it should be considered good clinical practice to assess and address frailty in older patients and to establish multimodal prehabilitation approaches tailored to this patient group.

Bibliometric analysis of global research on physical activity and sedentary behavior in the context of cancer

Objective

Numerous studies focusing on sedentary behavior (SB) and physical activity (PA) in the context of cancer have been reported in recent years. We analyzed and visualized studies on SB and PA in patients with cancer over the last 20 years using scientometric methods, to provide insights on gaps and deficiencies in the literature, and to inform future research guidelines.

Methods

All relevant studies in the field from 2001 to October 2022 were reviewed using bibliometric tools, including VOSviewer, Bibliometric online analysis platform, and biblioshiny, to determine the most influential countries, institutions, journals, and authors. We explored current research hotpots and potential research trends, based on keyword clustering and dynamic changes. Our research focuses on PA, SB, and cancer across the entire cancer continuum, from primary prevention to treatment to cancer survivorship.

Results

Scientometric analysis identified 4,382 relevant manuscripts on SB and PA in the context of cancer, with a 10-fold increase in articles over the past 20 years. The United States, Canada, and Australia were the most influential countries. The journal, Supportive Care in Cancer, had the highest number of publications, while Clinical Oncology had the highest H-index. K.S. Courneya was the most influential author in this field, with the highest number of publications, total citations, and H-index. Keyword analysis revealed that current research is focused on PA and SB in patients with breast cancer, quality of life, and aerobic exercise. Future frontiers include cancer prehabilitation programs and cardiorespiratory fitness, and remote intervention and social support.

Conclusion

By using bibliometrics, we conducted a comprehensive review of SB and PA in cancer-related studies. The current research focused on exercise and sedentariness in breast cancer patients and the role of PA in improving quality of life in survivorship. Emerging research foci were generally around cancer prehabilitation programs and remote intervention issues for PA. In addition, some publication deficits are noted: studies of PA and SB in less common cancers; the recommended doses and intensities of exercise for cancer; the timing of interventions for prehabilitation and the establishment of individualized exercise protocols. These deficiencies align with the needs for future research topics.

Perioperative care about a patient with multimorbidity

The assumption of accelerated postoperative recovery according to the ERAS (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery) method is good condition of the patient prepared for surgery and gently operated on. Application of ERAS in postoperative care in the situation of patient with multimorbidity requires an individual approach and greater pre-operative preparation. During the healing process, the operation causes a systemic inflammatory reaction in the body, which is proportional to the size of the surgery trauma. There is fluid movement between the intravascular and interstitial spaces, increased protein catabolism, increased susceptibility to infectious complications and increased risk of decompensation of chronic diseases. The mandatory content of the pre-operative examination is a functional cardiopulmonary reserves assessment, nutritional risk screening, update of diagnostic summary and optimization of chronic medication before surgery. Prehabilitation and nutritional preparation before the planned operation is influenced by the time urgency of the operation, but even in the case of cancer, short-term nutritional preparation is indicated., Medical workplaces are the most suitable for parenteral and enteral pre-operative nutrition however some surgical departments perform the preparation themselves if necessary. The GDT (Goal Directed Therapy) regimen with a higher degree of hemodynamic monitoring and intervention is applied in the postoperative care of hemodynamic unstable risk patients. Next to decompensation of a chronic disease is mainly heart rhythm disorders (most often atrial fibrillation), cardiac complications including coronary event, stroke, acute delirium.

Effect of short-term prehabilitation of older patients with colorectal cancer: A propensity score-matched analysis

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of short-term, hospital-based, supervised multimodal prehabilitation on elderly patients with colorectal cancer.

Methods

A single-center, retrospective study was conducted from October 2020 to December 2021, which included a total of 587 CRC patients who were scheduled to undergo radical resection. A propensity score-matching analysis was performed to reduce selection bias. All patients were treated within a standardized enhanced recovery pathway, and patients in the prehabilitation group received an additional supervised, short-term multimodal preoperative prehabilitation intervention. Short-term outcomes were compared between the two groups.

Results

Among the participants, 62 patients were excluded; 95 participants were included in the prehabilitation group and 430 in the non-prehabilitation group. After PSM analysis, 95 pairs of well-matched patients were included in the comparative study. Participants in the prehabilitation group had better preoperative functional capacity (402.78 m vs. 390.09 m, P<0.001), preoperative anxiety status (9% vs. 28%, P<0.001), time to first ambulation[25.0(8.0) hours vs. 28.0(12.4) hours, P=0.008], time to first flatus [39.0(22.0) hours vs. 47.7(34.0) hours, P=0.006], duration of the postoperative length of hospital stay [8.0(3.0) days vs. 10.0(5.0) days, P=0.007), and quality of life in terms of psychological dimensions at 1 month postoperatively [53.0(8.0) vs. 49.0(5.0), P<0.001].

Conclusion

The short-term, hospital-based, supervised multimodal prehabilitation is feasible with a high degree of compliance in older CRC patients, which improves their short-term clinical outcomes.

Prehabilitation in Adult Solid Organ Transplant Candidates

Purpose of Review

To highlight the importance of biological age in the context of prehabilitation and to present relevant research regarding prehabilitation prior to solid organ transplantation.

Recent Findings

Studies on the effect of prehabilitation have been performed in kidney-, lung-, liver-, and heart transplant patient populations. Prior to kidney transplantation, exercise interventions have been shown to improve cardiopulmonary- and physical fitness and result in a decreased length of hospital stay postoperatively. Among lung transplant candidates, various methods of prehabilitation have been studied including home-based, outpatient and in-patient programs, consisting of physical training, psychological support, education, and nutritional interventions. Overall, prehabilitation seems to improve or maintain quality of life and exercise capacity in this patient population. Patients undergoing liver transplantation seem to benefit from prehabilitation as well. Not only does it seem safe and feasible, but significant improvements in aerobic and functional capacity have also been found. Regarding heart transplant candidates, both inpatient and outpatient, supervised prehabilitation programs show promising results with improvements in exercise capacities and quality of life.

Summary

Prehabilitation is an effective and safe intervention for improving functional outcomes of solid organ transplant patients. Future studies should evaluate whether prehabilitation translates into improved pre- and post-transplant clinical outcomes.

A systematic review of multimodal prehabilitation in breast cancer

PURPOSE

Breast cancer is the most prevalent malignancy in women. Prehabilitation may offer improvements in physical and psychological wellbeing among participants prior to treatment. This systematic review aimed to determine the efficacy of prehabilitation in participants diagnosed with breast cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines. Studies exploring the impact of prehabilitation in participants with breast cancer were included. Studies were assessed independently according to pre-eligibility criteria, with data extraction and methodological quality assessed in parallel.

RESULTS

3184 records were identified according to our search criteria, and 14 articles were included. Articles comprised of quantitative randomised controlled trials (n = 7), quantitative non-randomised studies (n = 5), a qualitative study (n = 1), and a mixed-method study (n = 1). The majority of selected studies completed exercise programs (n = 4) or had exercise components (n = 2), with two focusing on upper-limb exercise. Five articles reported complementary and alternative therapies (n = 5). Two articles reported smoking cessation (n = 2), with a single study reporting multi-modal prehabilitation (n = 1). Mostly, prehabilitation improved outcomes including physical function, quality of life, and psychosocial variables (P < 0.05). The qualitative data identified preferences for multimodal prehabilitation, compared to unimodal with  an interest in receiving support for longer.

CONCLUSIONS

Prehabilitation for patients with breast cancer is an emerging research area that appears to improve outcomes, however, ensuring that adequate intervention timeframes, follow-up, and population groups should be considered for future investigations.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

The implementation of prehabilitation interventions for individuals diagnosed with breast cancer should be utilised by multidisciplinary teams to provide holistic care to patients as it has the potential to improve outcomes across the cancer care trajectory.

Identifying relative efficacy of components of prehabilitation in adult surgical patients: protocol for a systematic review and component network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Prehabilitation is a high-priority intervention for patients, the public, clinicians and health systems. However, existing knowledge syntheses are generally low quality and do not provide insights regarding the relative efficacy of different prehabilitation components (eg, exercise, nutrition, psychosocial or cognitive interventions). The objective of the planned review is to evaluate the relative efficacy of different prehabilitation components to inform current care, implementation and future research.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will perform a systematic review and component network meta-analysis (CNMA). We will use a peer-reviewed search strategy to identify all randomised trials of prehabilitation in adult surgical patients from Ovid Medline, Embase, the CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, along with grey literature. All stages of the review and data extraction process will be performed in duplicate, following recommended best practices. To compare the relative efficacy of different prehabilitation components (prespecified as exercise, nutrition, psychosocial or cognitive interventions), we will use CNMA, an extension of network meta-analysis that allows estimation of the contributions to efficacy of each component of a multicomponent intervention through direct and indirect comparisons. We will use additive CNMA models for critical outcomes (postoperative complications, patient-reported recovery, physical recovery and length of stay); standard care will be the common reference condition. Pre-specified sensitivity and subgroup analyses will be conducted.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This review of published data does not require ethical review. Results will be disseminated via scientific conferences, peer-reviewed publications, social and traditional media and via our research network to target partners and organisations.

Perioperative Nursing as the Guiding Thread of a Prehabilitation Program

Multimodal preoperative prehabilitation has been shown to be effective in improving the functional capacity of cancer patients, reducing postoperative complications and the length of hospital and ICU stay after surgery. The availability of prehabilitation units that gather all the professionals involved in patient care facilitates the development of integrated and patient-centered multimodal prehabilitation programs, as well as patient adherence. This article describes the process of creating a prehabilitation unit in our center and the role of perioperative nursing. Initially, the project was launched with the performance of a research study on prehabilitation for gastrointestinal cancer surgery. The results of this study encouraged us to continue the implementation of the unit. Progressively, multimodal prehabilitation programs focusing on each type of patient and surgery were developed. Currently, our prehabilitation unit is a care unit that has its own gym, which allows supervised training of cancer patients prior to surgery. Likewise, the evolution of perioperative nursing in the unit is described: from collaboration and assistance in the integral evaluation of the patient at the beginning to current work as a case manager; a task that has proven extremely important for the comprehensive and continuous care of the patient.

Pre-Habilitation of Cardiac Surgical Patients, Part 2: Frailty, Malnutrition, Respiratory disease, Alcohol/Smoking cessation and Depression

The concept of "pre-habilitation" comprises screening for and identification of pre-existing disorders followed by medical optimization. This is performed for many types of surgeries, but may have profound impacts on outcomes, particularly in cardiac surgery given the multiple comorbidities typically carried by these patients. Components of pre-habilitation include direct medical intervention by preoperative specialists as well as significant care coordination and shared decision-making. In this second part of a two-part review, the authors describe existing evidence to support the optimization of various preoperative problems and present a few institutional protocols utilized at out center for cardiac presurgical care. This second installment will focus on alcohol and smoking cessation and the management of frailty, malnutrition, respiratory disease, and depression.

Effect of a patient education video and prehabilitation on the quality of preoperative person-centred coordinated care experience: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Multimodal prehabilitation, an emerging field within the Perioperative Medicine specialty, requires close multidisciplinary team coordination. The goal is to optimise the patient's health status in the 4-8 weeks before elective surgery to withstand surgical stress. Most patients are unfamiliar with the concept of prehabilitation but are interested in participating in such a programme after explanation. The objective of this randomised controlled trial is to evaluate the effect of prehabilitation (patient education video and multimodal prehabilitation) on the preoperative patient-centred coordinated care experience.

METHOD AND ANALYSIS

One hundred patients undergoing major elective surgery (cardiac, colorectal, hepatobiliary-pancreatic and urology) will be recruited into a two-group, parallel, superiority, single-blinded randomised controlled trial. Patients will be randomised to receive either preoperative patient education comprising of a video and prehabilitation programme with standard care (intervention) or standard care (control). The primary outcome measure will be the quality of preoperative patient care experience using the 11-item Chinese version of the Person-Centred Coordinated Care Experience Questionnaire (P3CEQ) before surgery. Secondary outcomes will include the change in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) score from trial enrolment to before surgery, Quality of Recovery Score (QoR-15) on third day after surgery and Days Alive and At Home within 30 days after surgery (DAH₃₀). Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses will be performed.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Joint CUHK-NTEC Clinical Research Ethics Committee approved the study protocol (CREC Ref. No. 2021.518-T). The findings will be presented at scientific meetings, in peer-reviewed journals and to study participants.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2100053637.

Cognitive Processes during Recovery: Moving toward Personalized Spine Surgery Outcomes

This paper focuses on a novel application of personalized medicine: the ways one thinks about health (i.e., appraisal processes) as relevant predictors of spine-surgery response. This prospective longitudinal cohort study (n = 235) investigated how appraisal processes relate to outcomes of spinal decompression and/or fusion surgery, from pre-surgery through one-year post-surgery. Patient-reported outcomes assessed spine-specific disability (Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)), mental health functioning (Rand-36 Mental Component Score (MCS)), and cognitive appraisal processes (how people recall past experiences and to whom they compare themselves). Analysis of Variance examined the appraisal-outcomes association in separate models at pre-surgery, 3 months, and 12 months. We found that appraisal processes explained less variance at pre-surgery than later and were differentially relevant to health outcomes at different times in the spine-surgery recovery trajectory. For the ODI, recall of the seriousness of their condition was most prominent early in recovery, and comparing themselves to positive standards was most prominent later. For the MCS, not focusing on the negative aspects of their condition and/or on how others see them was associated with steady improvement and higher scores at 12 months. Appraisal processes are relevant to both spine-specific disability and mental-health functioning. Such processes are modifiable objects of attention for personalizing spine-surgery outcomes.

Appraisal and patient-reported outcomes following total hip arthroplasty: a longitudinal cohort study

Background

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a successful procedure that provides pain relief, restores function, and improves quality of life (QOL) for patients with advanced arthritis in their hip joint. To date, little research has examined the role of cognitive appraisal processes in THA outcomes. This study examined the role of cognitive appraisal processes in THA outcomes in the first year post-surgery.

Methods

This longitudinal cohort study collected data at pre-surgery, 6 weeks post-surgery, 3 months post-surgery, and 12 months post-surgery. Adults (n = 189) with a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis were consecutively recruited from an active THA practice at a Canadian academic teaching hospital. Measures included the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), the Mental Component Score (MCS) of the Rand-36, and the Brief Appraisal Inventory (BAI). Analysis of Variance examined the association between BAI items and the HOOS or MCS scores. Random effects models investigated appraisal main effects and appraisal-by-time interactions for selected BAI items.

Results

HOOS showed great improvement over the first 12 months after THA, and was mitigated by three appraisal processes in particular: focusing on problems with healthcare or living situation, and preparing one’s family for health changes. MCS was stable and low over time, and the following appraisal processes were implicated by very large effect sizes: not comparing themselves to healthier people, focusing on money problems, preparing their family for their health changes, or trying to shed responsibilities.

Conclusions

Appraisal processes are relevant to health outcomes after THA, with different processes coming into play at different points in the recovery trajectory.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41687-022-00498-z.

Präoperative Physiotherapie vor viszeralen abdominalen Operationen digital umsetzen? – Eine qualitative Machbarkeitsstudie

Hintergrund Große Operationen am Bauchraum stellen die größte Gruppe der Operationen in Deutschland dar. Besonders Patient*innen mit Komorbiditäten zeigen ein hohes Risiko für die Entwicklung postoperativer respiratorischer Komplikationen und damit einhergehend postoperativer Einbußen der körperlichen Funktionsfähigkeit. Obwohl präoperative Physiotherapie positiven Einfluss auf die Komplikationsrate nehmen kann, wird sie in Deutschland nicht regelhaft umgesetzt.

Ziel Untersuchung der Machbarkeit einer digitalen Umsetzung präoperativer Physiotherapie aus der Perspektive von Ärzt*innen, Physiotherapierenden und Patient*innen. Dazu werden Bedarfe an eine digitale Intervention sowie inhaltliche und technische Anforderungen erfragt.

Methode In einer qualitativen Studie wurden 2 Ärzt*innen, 5 Physiotherapierende und 2 Patienten interviewt. Die Daten wurden transkribiert und mittels qualitativer Inhaltsanalyse nach Schreier 35 ausgewertet.

Ergebnisse Die Ergebnisse bestätigten die hohe Relevanz der präoperativen Versorgung. Digitale Interventionen können die in diesem Zusammenhang existierende Versorgungslücke schließen. Die formulierten Anforderungen an eine Individualisierung und einen motivierenden Charakter können insbesondere durch Apps realisiert werden.

Diskussion Die zu entwickelnde App soll darauf abzielen 1.) eine Verhaltensänderung anzubahnen, 2.) Wissen zu vermitteln und 3.) Übungen anzuleiten. Vor dem Hintergrund der Zielsetzungen und dem Kontext, in dem die App Anwendung finden soll, ist von einer hohen Komplexität bei der Entwicklung und besonders der Implementierung auszugehen. Gleichzeitig ermöglicht die vorgelegte Analyse eine direkte Bearbeitung der identifizierten Herausforderungen.

Schlussfolgerung Die Entwicklung einer App als Teil der präoperativen Vorbereitung hat das Potenzial, eine aktuelle Versorgungslücke zu schließen und die möglichen negativen Folgen einer Operation zu adressieren. Die vorgelegte Studie gibt Hinweise für die nächsten Entwicklungsschritte.

Prehabilitation versus no prehabilitation to improve functional capacity, reduce postoperative complications and improve quality of life in colorectal cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Surgery is the cornerstone in curative treatment of colorectal cancer. Unfortunately, surgery itself can adversely affect patient health. 'Enhanced Recovery After Surgery' programmes, which include multimodal interventions, have improved patient outcomes substantially. However, these are mainly applied peri- and postoperatively. Multimodal prehabilitation includes multiple preoperative interventions to prepare patients for surgery with the aim of increasing resilience, thereby improving postoperative outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of multimodal prehabilitation programmes on functional capacity, postoperative complications, and quality of life in adult patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO in January 2021. We also searched trial registries up to March 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adult patients with non-metastatic colorectal cancer, scheduled for surgery, comparing multimodal prehabilitation programmes (defined as comprising at least two preoperative interventions) with no prehabilitation. We focused on the following outcomes: functional capacity (i.e. 6-minute walk test, VO2peak, handgrip strength), postoperative outcomes (i.e. complications, mortality, length of hospital stay, emergency department visits, re-admissions), health-related quality of life, compliance, safety of prehabilitation, and return to normal activities.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Any disagreements were solved with discussion and consensus. We pooled data to perform meta-analyses, where possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three RCTs that enrolled 250 participants with non-metastatic colorectal cancer, scheduled for elective (mainly laparoscopic) surgery. Included trials were conducted in tertiary care centres and recruited patients during periods ranging from 17 months to 45 months. A total of 130 participants enrolled in a preoperative four-week trimodal prehabilitation programme consisting of exercise, nutritional intervention, and anxiety reduction techniques. Outcomes of these participants were compared to those of 120 participants who started an identical but postoperative programme. Postoperatively, prehabilitation may improve functional capacity, determined with the 6-minute walk test at four and eight weeks (mean difference (MD) 26.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) -13.81 to 65.85; 2 studies; n = 131; and MD 26.58, 95% CI -8.88 to 62.04; 2 studies; n = 140); however, the certainty of evidence is low and very low, respectively, due to serious risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. After prehabilitation, the functional capacity before surgery improved, with a clinically relevant mean difference of 24.91 metres (95% CI 11.24 to 38.57; 3 studies; n = 225). The certainty of evidence was moderate due to downgrading for serious risk of bias. Prehabilitation may also result in fewer complications (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.29; 3 studies; n = 250) and fewer emergency department visits (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.32; 3 studies; n = 250). The certainty of evidence was low due to downgrading for serious risk of bias and imprecision. On the other hand, prehabilitation may also result in a higher re-admission rate (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.65; 3 studies; n = 250). The certainty of evidence was again low due to downgrading for risk of bias and imprecision. The effect on VO2peak, handgrip strength, length of hospital stay, mortality rate, health-related quality of life, return to normal activities, safety of the programme, and compliance rate could not be analysed quantitatively due to missing or insufficient data. The included studies did not report a difference between groups for health-related quality of life and length of hospital stay. Data on remaining outcomes were not reported or were reported inadequately in the included studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prehabilitation may result in an improved functional capacity, determined with the 6-minute walk test both preoperatively and postoperatively. Complication rates and the number of emergency department visits postoperatively may also diminish due to a prehabilitation programme, while the number of re-admissions may be higher in the prehabilitation group. The certainty of evidence ranges from moderate to very low, due to downgrading for serious risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency. In addition, only three heterogeneous studies were included in this review. Therefore, the findings of this review should be interpreted with caution. Numerous relevant RCTs are ongoing and will be included in a future update of this review.

'Fit for surgery': The relationship between cardiorespiratory fitness and postoperative outcomes

New Findings

What is the topic of this review?

The relationships and physiological mechanisms underlying the clinical benefits of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) in patients undergoing major intra‐abdominal surgery.

What advances does it highlight?

Elevated CRF reduces postoperative morbidity/mortality, thus highlighting the importance of CRF as an independent risk factor. The vascular protection afforded by exercise prehabilitation can further improve surgical risk stratification and postoperative outcomes.

Abstract

Surgery accounts for 7.7% of all deaths globally and the number of procedures is increasing annually. A patient's ‘fitness for surgery’ describes the ability to tolerate a physiological insult, fundamental to risk assessment and care planning. We have evolved as obligate aerobes that rely on oxygen (O₂). Systemic O₂ consumption can be measured via cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) providing objective metrics of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF). Impaired CRF is an independent risk factor for mortality and morbidity. The perioperative period is associated with increased O₂ demand, which if not met leads to O₂ deficit, the magnitude and duration of which dictates organ failure and ultimately death. CRF is by far the greatest modifiable risk factor, and optimal exercise interventions are currently under investigation in patient prehabilitation programmes. However, current practice demonstrates potential for up to 60% of patients, who undergo preoperative CPET, to have their fitness incorrectly stratified. To optimise this work we must improve the detection of CRF and reduce potential for interpretive error that may misinform risk classification and subsequent patient care, better quantify risk by expressing the power of CRF to predict mortality and morbidity compared to traditional cardiovascular risk factors, and improve patient interventions with the capacity to further enhance vascular adaptation. Thus, a better understanding of CRF, used to determine fitness for surgery, will enable both clinicians and exercise physiologists to further refine patient care and management to improve survival.

Home-based prehabilitation with exercise to improve postoperative recovery for older adults with frailty having cancer surgery: the PREHAB randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Frailty is a state of vulnerability as a result of decreased reserves. Prehabilitation may increase reserve and improve postoperative outcomes. Our objective was to determine if home-based prehabilitation improves postoperative functional recovery in older adults with frailty having cancer surgery.

METHODS

This double blind randomised trial enrolled people ≥60 yr having elective cancer surgery and ≥3 weeks from enrolment to surgery as eligible. Participation in a remotely supported, home-based exercise prehabilitation program plus nutritional guidance was compared with standard care plus written advice on age-appropriate activity and nutrition. The primary outcome was 6-min walk test (6MWT) distance at the first postoperative clinic visit. Secondary outcomes included physical performance, quality of life, disability, length of stay, non-home discharge, and 30-day readmission.

RESULTS

Of 543 patients assessed, 254 were eligible and 204 (80%) were randomised (102 per arm); 182 (94 intervention and 88 control) had surgery and were analysed. Mean age was 74 yr and 57% were female. Mean duration of participation was 5 weeks, mean adherence was 61% (range 0%-100%). We found no significant difference in 6MWT at follow-up (+14 m, 95% confidence interval -26-55 m, P=0.486), or for secondary outcomes. Analyses using a prespecified adherence definition of ≥80% supported improvements in 6MWT distance, complication count, and disability.

CONCLUSIONS

A home-based prehabilitation program did not significantly improve postoperative recovery or other outcomes in older adults with frailty having cancer surgery. Program adherence may be a key mediator of prehabilitation efficacy.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02934230.

Management of Perineal Wounds Following Pelvic Surgery

Despite advancements in understanding and technique, there remain significant challenges in the management of a complex perineal wound following pelvic surgery. Complications including wound sepsis, fistulation, persistent sinus, and herniation produce additional morbidity and health care costs. This article details the methods of optimizing patient and operative factors to mitigate this risk, alongside strategies to deal with sequelae of wound failure.

Prehabilitation, enhanced recovery after surgery, or both? A narrative review

This narrative review presents a biological rationale and evidence to describe how the preoperative condition of the patient contributes to postoperative morbidity. Any preoperative condition that prevents a patient from tolerating the physiological stress of surgery (e.g. poor cardiopulmonary reserve, sarcopaenia), impairs the stress response (e.g. malnutrition, frailty), and/or augments the catabolic response to stress (e.g. insulin resistance) is a risk factor for poor surgical outcomes. Prehabilitation interventions that include exercise, nutrition, and psychosocial components can be applied before surgery to strengthen physiological reserve and enhance functional capacity, which, in turn, supports recovery through attaining surgical resilience. Prehabilitation complements Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) care to achieve optimal patient outcomes because recovery is not a passive process and it begins preoperatively.

Effect of Whey Protein Supplementation on Perioperative Outcomes in Patients with Cancer-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PROSPERO 2020: CRD42020188666)

Whey protein has several biochemical characteristics which make it an ideal nutritional supplement in cancer. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effects of whey on perioperative outcomes in cancer. A systematic review was conducted as per the Preferred Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The primary outcome was postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes included 6-minute walk test, length of stay (LOS), and thirty-day readmission. Of the ten trials, six supplemented whey to meet protein requirements of around 1.2 mg/kg/day, and four supplemented whey variably. A synthesis of ten trials with 643 patients showed significantly decreased postoperative complications in the whey supplemented (22%) group as compared to the control (32%) (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41-0.90; P = 0.01). Analysis of six trials showed that patients supplemented with whey had greater functional walking capacity before surgery (MD 23.76 meters, 95% CI 4.05-43.47; participants = 377; P = 0.02) and after 4 weeks of surgery (MD 45.76, 95% CI 14.19-77.33; participants = 366; P = 0.004). Thirty-day readmissions and LOS showed no differences. Risk of bias varied between the trials and evidence was moderate to low. Whey protein supplementation improved the perioperative functional capacity and significantly reduced postoperative complications in patients with cancer.

Prehabilitation in adult patients undergoing surgery: an umbrella review of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

The certainty that prehabilitation improves postoperative outcomes is not clear. The objective of this umbrella review (i.e. systematic review of systematic reviews) was to synthesise and evaluate evidence for prehabilitation in improving health, experience, or cost outcomes.

METHODS

We performed an umbrella review of prehabilitation systematic reviews. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Joanna Briggs Institute's database, and Web of Science were searched (inception to October 20, 2020). We included all systematic reviews of elective, adult patients undergoing surgery and exposed to a prehabilitation intervention, where health, experience, or cost outcomes were reported. Evidence certainty was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Primary syntheses of any prehabilitation were stratified by surgery type.

RESULTS

From 1412 titles, 55 systematic reviews were included. For patients with cancer undergoing surgery who participate in any prehabilitation, moderate certainty evidence supports improvements in functional recovery. Low to very low certainty evidence supports reductions in complications (mixed, cardiovascular, and cancer surgery), non-home discharge (orthopaedic surgery), and length of stay (mixed, cardiovascular, and cancer surgery). There was low to very low certainty evidence that exercise prehabilitation reduces the risk of complications, non-home discharge, and length of stay. There was low to very low certainty evidence that nutritional prehabilitation reduces risk of complications, mortality, and length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Low certainty evidence suggests that prehabilitation may improve postoperative outcomes. Future low risk of bias, randomised trials, synthesised using recommended standards, are required to inform practice. Optimal patient selection, intervention design, and intervention duration must also be determined.

Multimodal prehabilitation before major abdominal surgery: A retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

Prehabilitation may benefit older patients undergoing major surgeries. Currently, its efficacy has not been conclusively proven. This is a retrospective review of a multimodal prehabilitation programme.

METHODS

Patients aged 65 years and above undergoing major abdominal surgery between May 2015 and December 2019 in the National University Hospital were included in our institutional programme that incorporated aspects of multimodal prehabilitation and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery concepts as 1 holistic perioperative pathway to deal with issues specific to older patients. Physical therapy, nutritional advice and psychosocial support were provided as part of prehabilitation.

RESULTS

There were 335 patients in the prehabilitation cohort and 256 patients whose records were reviewed as control. No difference in postoperative length of stay (P=0.150) or major complications (P=0.690) were noted. Patients in the prehabilitation group were observed to ambulate a longer distance and participate more actively with their physiotherapists from postoperative day 1 until 4. In the subgroup of patients with cancer, more patients had undergone neoadjuvant therapy in the prehabilitation group compared to the control group (21.7% versus 12.6%, P=0.009). Prehabilitation patients were more likely to proceed to adjuvant chemotherapy (prehabilitation 87.2% vs control 65.6%, P<0.001) if it had been recommended.

CONCLUSION

The current study found no differences in traditional surgical outcome measures with and without prehabilitation. An increase in patient mobility in the immediate postoperative period was noted with prehabilitation, as well as an association between prehabilitation and increased adherence to postoperative adjuvant therapy. Larger prospective studies will be needed to validate the findings of this retrospective review.

Metabolic syndrome; associations with adverse outcome after colorectal surgery. A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Increasing evidence shows that patients with Metabolic Syndrome (MetS) are at risk for adverse outcome after abdominal surgery. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of MetS and preoperative hyperglycemia, as an individual component of MetS, on adverse outcome after colorectal surgery.

Methods

A literature review was systematically performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria were observational studies that evaluated the relationship between MetS or preoperative hyperglycemia and outcomes after colorectal surgery (i.e. any complication, severe complication defined as Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ III, anastomotic leakage, surgical site infection, mortality and length of stay).

Results

Six studies (246.383 patients) evaluated MetS and eight studies (9.534 patients) reported on hyperglycemia. Incidence rates of MetS varied widely from 7% to 68% across studies. Meta-analysis showed that patients with MetS are more likely to develop severe complications than those without MetS (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.01–2.59). Moreover, a non-significant trend toward increased risks for any complication (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.91–2.00), anastomotic leakage (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.47–5.93) and mortality (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00–1.43) was found. Furthermore, preoperative hyperglycemia was associated with an increased risk of surgical site infection (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.01–1.81).

Conclusion

MetS seem to have a negative impact on adverse outcome after colorectal surgery. As a result of few studies meeting inclusion criteria and substantial heterogeneity, evidence is not conclusive. Future prospective observational studies should improve the amount and quality in order to verify current results.

•

The prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) in colorectal surgery patients is 7–68%.

•

MetS increases the risk of severe complications after colorectal surgery.

•

Preoperative hyperglycemia, as an individual component of MetS, is associated with surgical site infection.

•

Identification of MetS could be valuable in preoperative risk stratification.