1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Feasibility of a prehabilitation program before major abdominal surgery: a pilot prospective study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To assess the feasibility of a prehabilitation program and its effects on physical performance and outcomes after major abdominal surgery.

          Methods

          In this prospective pilot study, patients underwent prehabilitation involving three training sessions per week for 3 weeks preoperatively. The feasibility of delivering the intervention was assessed based on recruitment and adherence to the program. Its impacts on fitness (oxygen uptake (VO 2)) and physical performance (Timed Up and Go Test, 6-Minute Walk Test) were evaluated.

          Results

          From May 2017 to January 2020, 980 patients were identified and 44 (4.5%) were invited to participate. The main obstacles to patient recruitment were insufficient time (<3 weeks) prior to scheduled surgery (n = 276, 28%) and screening failure (n = 312, 32%). Of the 44 patients, 24 (55%) declined to participate, and 20 (23%) were included. Of these, six (30%) were not adherent to the program. Among the remaining 14 patients, VO 2 at ventilatory threshold significantly increased from 9.7 to 10.9 mL/min/kg. No significant difference in physical performance was observed before and after prehabilitation.

          Conclusion

          Although prehabilitation seemed to have positive effects on exercise capacity, logistic and patient-related difficulties were encountered. The program is not feasible in its current form for all-comers.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey.

          Although quality assessment is gaining increasing attention, there is still no consensus on how to define and grade postoperative complications. This shortcoming hampers comparison of outcome data among different centers and therapies and over time. A classification of complications published by one of the authors in 1992 was critically re-evaluated and modified to increase its accuracy and its acceptability in the surgical community. Modifications mainly focused on the manner of reporting life-threatening and permanently disabling complications. The new grading system still mostly relies on the therapy used to treat the complication. The classification was tested in a cohort of 6336 patients who underwent elective general surgery at our institution. The reproducibility and personal judgment of the classification were evaluated through an international survey with 2 questionnaires sent to 10 surgical centers worldwide. The new ranking system significantly correlated with complexity of surgery (P < 0.0001) as well as with the length of the hospital stay (P < 0.0001). A total of 144 surgeons from 10 different centers around the world and at different levels of training returned the survey. Ninety percent of the case presentations were correctly graded. The classification was considered to be simple (92% of the respondents), reproducible (91%), logical (92%), useful (90%), and comprehensive (89%). The answers of both questionnaires were not dependent on the origin of the reply and the level of training of the surgeons. The new complication classification appears reliable and may represent a compelling tool for quality assessment in surgery in all parts of the world.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

            Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover 3 main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors, to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all 3 study designs and 4 are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available at http://www.annals.org and on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology.

              In 1986, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) initiated a research program to develop an integrated, modular approach for evaluating the quality of life of patients participating in international clinical trials. We report here the results of an international field study of the practicality, reliability, and validity of the EORTC QLQ-C30, the current core questionnaire. The QLQ-C30 incorporates nine multi-item scales: five functional scales (physical, role, cognitive, emotional, and social); three symptom scales (fatigue, pain, and nausea and vomiting); and a global health and quality-of-life scale. Several single-item symptom measures are also included. The questionnaire was administered before treatment and once during treatment to 305 patients with nonresectable lung cancer from centers in 13 countries. Clinical variables assessed included disease stage, weight loss, performance status, and treatment toxicity. The average time required to complete the questionnaire was approximately 11 minutes, and most patients required no assistance. The data supported the hypothesized scale structure of the questionnaire with the exception of role functioning (work and household activities), which was also the only multi-item scale that failed to meet the minimal standards for reliability (Cronbach's alpha coefficient > or = .70) either before or during treatment. Validity was shown by three findings. First, while all interscale correlations were statistically significant, the correlation was moderate, indicating that the scales were assessing distinct components of the quality-of-life construct. Second, most of the functional and symptom measures discriminated clearly between patients differing in clinical status as defined by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status scale, weight loss, and treatment toxicity. Third, there were statistically significant changes, in the expected direction, in physical and role functioning, global quality of life, fatigue, and nausea and vomiting, for patients whose performance status had improved or worsened during treatment. The reliability and validity of the questionnaire were highly consistent across the three language-cultural groups studied: patients from English-speaking countries, Northern Europe, and Southern Europe. These results support the EORTC QLQ-C30 as a reliable and valid measure of the quality of life of cancer patients in multicultural clinical research settings. Work is ongoing to examine the performance of the questionnaire among more heterogenous patient samples and in phase II and phase III clinical trials.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Int Med Res
                J Int Med Res
                IMR
                spimr
                The Journal of International Medical Research
                SAGE Publications (Sage UK: London, England )
                0300-0605
                1473-2300
                1 December 2021
                November 2021
                : 49
                : 11
                : 03000605211060196
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Visceral Surgery, University Hospital CHUV and University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne, Switzerland
                [2 ]Department of Sports Medicine, Swiss Olympic Medical Center, University Hospital CHUV and University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne, Switzerland
                [3 ]Faculty of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne, Switzerland
                [4 ]Department of Physiotherapy, University Hospital CHUV, Lausanne, Switzerland
                [5 ]Institute of Sport Sciences, University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne, Switzerland
                [6 ]Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University Hospital CHUV and University of Lausanne (UNIL), Lausanne, Switzerland
                Presented to the 108th Annual Congress of the Swiss Society of Surgery, 2021, Switzerland; published in abstract form in British Journal of Surgery, Volume 108 (Issue Supplement4), May 2021.
                Author notes
                [*]Nicolas Demartines, Department of Visceral Surgery, University Hospital CHUV, Rue du Bugnon 46, 1011 Lausanne, Switzerland. Email: demartines@ 123456chuv.ch
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1585-5231
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0969-7345
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9776-7501
                Article
                10.1177_03000605211060196
                10.1177/03000605211060196
                8649915
                34851778
                1bcfca26-9c9a-4f52-b6f3-dfebedca5b4d
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                : 4 August 2021
                : 28 October 2021
                Categories
                Prospective Clinical Research Report
                Custom metadata
                ts2

                prehabilitation,major abdominal surgery,physical activity,outcome,recruitment,adherence,pilot study

                Comments

                Comment on this article