Prehabilitation in patients undergoing colorectal surgery fails to confer reduction in overall morbidity: results of a single-center, blinded, randomized controlled trial

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.

Physical Prehabilitation in Patients who Underwent Major Abdominal Surgery: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Component Network Meta-Analysis Using GRADE and CINeMA Approach

BACKGROUND

Physical prehabilitation is recommended before major abdominal surgery to ameliorate short-term outcomes.

METHODS

A frequentist, random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to clarify which type of preoperative physical activity among aerobic exercise (AE), inspiratory muscle training (IMT), and resistance training produces benefits in patients who underwent major abdominal surgery. The surface under the P-score, odds ratio (OR), or mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were reported. The results were adjusted by using the component network approach. The critical endpoints were overall and major morbidity rate and mortality rate. The important but not critical endpoints were the length of stay (LOS) and pneumonia.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 25 studies. The best approaches for overall morbidity rate were AE and AE + IMT (OR = 0.61, p-score = 0.76, and OR = 0.66, p-score = 0.68). The best approaches for pneumonia were AE + IMT and AE (OR = 0.21, p-score = 0.91, and OR = 0.52, p-score = 0.68). The component analysis confirmed that the best incremental OR (0.30; 95% CI 0.12-0.74) could be obtained using AE + IMT. The best approach for LOS was AE alone (MD - 1.63 days; 95% CI - 3.43 to 0.18). The best combination of components was AE + IMT (MD - 1.70; 95% CI - 2.06 to - 1.27).

CONCLUSIONS

Physical prehabilitation reduces the overall morbidity rate, pneumonia, and length of stay. The most relevant effect of prehabilitation requires the simultaneous use of AE and IMT.

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.

A retrospective analysis of the association of effort-independent cardiopulmonary exercise test variables with postoperative complications in patients who underwent elective colorectal surgery

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate the association of effort-independent variables derived from the preoperative cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) with 30-day postoperative complications after elective colorectal surgery.

METHODS

A multicenter (n=4) retrospective explorative study was performed using data of patients who completed a preoperative CPET and underwent elective colorectal surgery. The preoperative slope of the relation between minute ventilation and carbon dioxide production (VE/VCO2-slope) and the oxygen uptake efficiency slope (OUES), as well as 30-day postoperative complications, were assessed. Multivariable logistic regression analyses and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to investigate the prognostic value of the relationship between these preoperative CPET-derived effort-independent variables and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

Data from 102 patients (60.1% males) with a median age of 72.0 (interquartile range 67.8-77.4) years were analyzed. Forty-four patients (43.1%) had one or more postoperative complications (of which 52.3% general and 77.3% surgical complications). Merely 10 (9.8%) patients had a general complication only. In multivariate analysis adjusted for surgical approach (open versus minimally invasive surgery), the VE/VCO2-slope (odds ratio (OR) 1.08, confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.16) and OUES (OR 0.94, CI 0.89-1.00) were statistically significant associated with the occurrence of 30-day postoperative complications.

CONCLUSION

The effort-independent VE/VCO2-slope and OUES might be used to assist in future preoperative risk assessment and could especially be of added value in patients who are unable or unwilling to deliver a maximal cardiorespiratory effort. Future research should reveal the predictive value of these variables individually and/or in combination with other prognostic (CPET-derived) variables for postoperative complications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05331196.

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.

Impact of preoperative uni- or multimodal prehabilitation on postoperative morbidity: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative complications occur in up to 43% of patients after surgery, resulting in increased morbidity and economic burden. Prehabilitation has the potential to increase patients' preoperative health status and thereby improve postoperative outcomes. However, reported results of prehabilitation are contradictory. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the effects of prehabilitation on postoperative outcomes (postoperative complications, hospital length of stay, pain at postoperative day 1) in patients undergoing elective surgery.

METHODS

The authors performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs published between January 2006 and June 2023 comparing prehabilitation programmes lasting ≥14 days to 'standard of care' (SOC) and reporting postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Database searches were conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO. The primary outcome examined was the effect of uni- or multimodal prehabilitation on 30-day complications. Secondary outcomes were length of ICU and hospital stay (LOS) and reported pain scores.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies (including 2090 patients randomized in a 1:1 ratio) met the inclusion criteria. Average methodological study quality was moderate. There was no difference between prehabilitation and SOC groups in regard to occurrence of postoperative complications (OR = 1.02, 95% c.i. 0.93 to 1.13; P = 0.10; I2 = 34%), total hospital LOS (-0.13 days; 95% c.i. -0.56 to 0.28; P = 0.53; I2 = 21%) or reported postoperative pain. The ICU LOS was significantly shorter in the prehabilitation group (-0.57 days; 95% c.i. -1.10 to -0.04; P = 0.03; I2 = 46%). Separate comparison of uni- and multimodal prehabilitation showed no difference for either intervention.

CONCLUSION

Prehabilitation reduces ICU LOS compared with SOC in elective surgery patients but has no effect on overall complication rates or total LOS, regardless of modality. Prehabilitation programs need standardization and specific targeting of those patients most likely to benefit.

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.

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.

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.

Efficacy of supervised exercise prehabilitation programs to improve major abdominal surgery outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The optimal package of components for a prehabilitation intervention remains unclear. The aim was to determine the efficacy of supervised exercise prehabilitation programs to enhance patient fitness and improve surgical outcomes. The protocol was preregistered (PROSPERO: CRD42020180693). PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, CENTRAL, PeDro, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of supervised prehabilitation programs before major abdominal surgery were included. Physical function, cardiorespiratory capacity and surgical outcomes were the primary outcomes measures. Risk of bias was assessed according to the Cochrane Risk of Bias 1.0 tool for RCTs. Data are summarized narratively, and where possible, quantitavely. Meta-analyses results are reported as risk ratios (RR), mean difference of changes between baseline and follow-up time points or mean difference between groups and 95% confidence interval (CI). Twenty RCTs were included in the analysis with a total of 1258 patients. The average 6-min walking distance change was +33 m in the prehabilitation group compared to the usual care (UC) group after prehabilitation (95% CI: [13, 53], P < 0.01). Only in studies with more than one supervised session per week changes in 6-min-walk distance were significantly higher in the prehabilitation group compared to the UC group after prehabiliatation (Mean difference: 47 m, 95% [CI]: [20-75], P < 0.01). The change in peak volume of oxygen uptake during a maximum cardiopulmonary test was +1.47 mL·kg^-1·min^-1 in the prehabilitation group compared to the UC group (95% CI: [0.68, 2.25], P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the change in oxygen uptake at anaerobic threshold between groups (Mean differences: 0.47, 95% CI: [-0.16, 1.10], P:0.14). Post-operative complications incidence was similar between groups (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: [0.61, 1.05], P:0.11), irrespective of the frequency of supervised session per week (RR: 0.67, 95% CI: [0.43, 1.03], P:0.07). In conclusion, prehabilitation programmes with more than one supervised session per week improved physical function but did not enhance surgical outcomes.

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

Importance

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

Objective

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

Design, Setting, and Participants

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

Interventions

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

Main Outcomes and Measures

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

Results

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

Conclusions and Relevance

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

Trial Registration

trialregister.nl Identifier: NTR5947.

Multimodal prehabilitation for major surgery in elderly patients to lower complications: protocol of a randomised, prospective, multicentre, multidisciplinary trial (PREHABIL Trial)

INTRODUCTION

The global volume of surgery is growing and the population ageing, and economic pressure is rising. Major surgery is associated with relevant morbidity and mortality. Postoperative reduction in physiological and functional capacity is especially marked in the elderly, multimorbid patient with low fitness level, sarcopenia and malnutrition. Interventions aiming to optimise the patient prior to surgery (prehabilitation) may reduce postoperative complications and consequently reduce health costs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a multicentre, multidisciplinary, prospective, 2-arm parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment. Primary outcome is the Comprehensive Complications Index at 30 days. Within 3 years, we aim to include 2×233 patients with a proven fitness deficit undergoing major surgery to be randomised using a computer-generated random numbers and a minimisation technique. The study intervention consists of a structured, multimodal, multidisciplinary prehabilitation programme over 2-4 weeks addressing deficits in physical fitness and nutrition, diabetes control, correction of anaemia and smoking cessation versus standard of care.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The PREHABIL trial has been approved by the responsible ethics committee (Kantonale Ethikkomission Bern, project ID 2020-01690). All participants provide written informed consent prior to participation. Participant recruitment began in February 2022 (10 and 8 patients analysed at time of submission), with anticipated completion in 2025. Publication of the results in peer-reviewed scientific journals are expected in late 2025.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04461301.

Improved Postoperative Outcomes after Prehabilitation for Colorectal Cancer Surgery in Older Patients: An Emulated Target Trial

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of a multimodal prehabilitation program on perioperative outcomes in colorectal cancer patients with a higher postoperative complication risk, using an emulated target trial (ETT) design.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An ETT design including overlap weighting based on propensity score was performed. The study consisted of all patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (2016-2021), in a large nonacademic training hospital, who were candidate to elective colorectal cancer surgery and had a higher risk for postoperative complications defined by: age ≥ 65 years and or American Society of Anesthesiologists score III/IV. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of prehabilitation compared with usual care on perioperative complications and length of stay (LOS).

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-one patients were included: 128 in the usual care group and 123 patients in the prehabilitation group. In the ITT analysis, the number needed to treat to reduce one or more complications in one person was 4.2 (95% CI 2.6-10). Compared with patients in the usual care group, patients undergoing prehabilitation had a 55% lower comprehensive complication score (95% CI -71 to -32%). There was a 33% reduction (95% CI -44 to -18%) in LOS from 7 to 5 days.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed a clinically relevant reduction of complications and LOS after multimodal prehabilitation in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery with a higher postoperative complication risk. The study methodology used may serve as an example for further larger multicenter comparative effectiveness research on prehabilitation.

Principles of enhanced recovery in gastrointestinal surgery

BACKGROUND

To reduce the impact of surgery-related stress, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways have been developed since over 15 years with subsequent improved postoperative outcome. This multimodal and evidence-based perioperative approach has spread to all fields of gastrointestinal surgery, from esophagus, stomach, duodenum and pancreas, liver, small intestine and colon, and rectum, as well as for other specialties like vascular and cardia surgeries or neurosurgery, among others.

PURPOSE

The aim of this state-of-the-art article is to assess current state of evidence on perioperative management specifically in gastrointestinal surgery, with a focus on surgery-related aspects, outcome benefit, and future directions.

CONCLUSION

The surgical team must promote continuous improvement of the patient's ERAS compliance to ensure optimal perioperative care. Everyday clinical practice should be performed according to latest evidence-based medicine and challenging surgical dogma. Moreover, the surgeon must lead and support a multidisciplinary and collaborative teamwork tailored to patient's need especially with anesthetists and nursing staff.