Dataset Information

Prehabilitation in elective surgical interventions - what must the general and abdominal surgeon know.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

For years, many efforts have been invested to prepare patients, in particular, those with reduced physical and psychic status, much better to provide and finally achieve better outocme if there is time available to provide several beneficial measures.

Methods

Therefore, the objective was to illustrate the concept and various single elements of a complex prehabilitation concept based on (i) selective references from the medical literature and (ii) own clinical experiences from clinical practice in general and abdominal surgery.

Results

Prehabiliation can be considered the solution of the efforts to improve preoperative status for patients in a disadvantageous status for almost all types of surgery and all other operative and/or interventional procedures. It is the targeted process to improve individual functionality and organ function before a planned (elective) surgical intervention; P. comprises basically nutritional, physical and psychological measures; P. focusses especially onto the elderly, frail and malnourished patients before a planned surgical intervention; the overall aim is to significantly improve final outcome characterized by shorter length of stay, lower complication rate and mortality as well as cost efficiency; P. is especially important in cancer surgery, in which the beneficial effects can be particularly implemented; P. programs and/or "Standard Operating Protocols" (SOP) may help to establish and materialize its single aspects and enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS). There is still further potential to reliably establish and to utilize the options of prehabilitation measures as listed above.

Conclusions

Prehabiliation is an indispensable aspect in today's preparation for elective surgery, which needs to become obligatory part of the preparation measures to planned surgical interventions, which can further contribute to a better final outcome and ERAS as well as, in addtion, needs to be further developed and accomplished.

SUBMITTER: Meißner C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10696941 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prehabilitation in elective surgical interventions - what must the general and abdominal surgeon know.

Meißner Carl C Meyer Frank F Ridwelski Karsten K

Innovative surgical sciences 20230601 2

<h4>Objectives</h4>For years, many efforts have been invested to prepare patients, in particular, those with reduced physical and psychic status, much better to provide and finally achieve better outocme if there is time available to provide several beneficial measures.<h4>Methods</h4>Therefore, the objective was to illustrate the concept and various single elements of a complex prehabilitation concept based on (i) selective references from the medical literature and (ii) own clinical experience ...[more]

PMID: 38058772

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the benefits and harms of pre-admission interventions (prehabilitation) on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing major elective surgery.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (published or unpublished). We searched Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, DARE, HTA and NHS EED, The Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PsychINFO and ISI Web of Science (June 2020).SettingSecondary care.ParticipantsPatients (≥18 years) undergoing major elective surgery (curative or palliative).InterventionsAny intervention administered in the preoperative period with the aim of improving postoperative outcomes.Outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were 30-day mortality, hospital length of stay (LoS) and postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes included LoS in intensive care unit or high dependency unit, perioperative morbidity, hospital readmission, postoperative pain, heath-related quality of life, outcomes specific to the intervention, intervention-specific adverse events and resource use.Review methodsTwo authors independently extracted data from eligible RCTs and assessed risk of bias and the certainty of evidence using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to pool data across trials.Results178 RCTs including eight types of intervention were included. Inspiratory muscle training (IMT), immunonutrition and multimodal interventions reduced hospital LoS (mean difference vs usual care: -1.81 days, 95% CI -2.31 to -1.31; -2.11 days, 95% CI -3.07 to -1.15; -1.67 days, 95% CI -2.31 to -1.03, respectively). Immunonutrition reduced infective complications (risk ratio (RR) 0.64 95% CI 0.40 to 1.01) and IMT, and exercise reduced postoperative pulmonary complications (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.80, and RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.75, respectively). Smoking cessation interventions reduced wound infections (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.64).ConclusionsSome prehabilitation interventions may reduce postoperative LoS and complications but the quality of the evidence was low.Prospero registration numberCRD42015019191.

Project description:ImportanceKnowledge regarding the long-term outcomes of elective treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) using endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) is increasing. However, data with greater than 10 years' follow-up remain sparse and are lacking from population-based studies.ObjectiveTo determine the long-term outcomes of EVAR compared with open surgical repair (OSR) for elective treatment of AAA.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective, population-based cohort study used linked administrative health data from Ontario, Canada, to identify all patients 40 years and older who underwent elective EVAR or OSR for AAA repair from April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2016, with follow-up terminating on March 31, 2017. A total of 17 683 patients were identified using validated procedure and billing codes and were propensity score matched. Analysis was conducted from June 26, 2018, to January 16, 2019.ExposuresElective EVAR or OSR for AAA.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival, defined as being free of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; reintervention; and secondary rupture.ResultsAmong 17 683 patients who received elective AAA repairs (mean [SD] age, 72.6 [7.8] years; 14 286 [80.8%] men), 6100 (34.5%) underwent EVAR and 11 583 (65.5%) underwent OSR. From these patients, 4010 well-balanced propensity score-matched pairs of patients were defined, with a mean (SD) age of 73.0 (7.6) years and 6583 (82.1%) men. In the matched cohort, the mean (SD) follow-up was 4.4 (2.7) years, and maximum follow-up was 13.8 years. The overall median survival was 8.9 years. Compared with OSR, EVAR was associated with a higher survival rate up to 1 year after repair (91.0% [95% CI, 90.1%-91.9%] vs 94.0% [95% CI, 93.3%-94.7%]) and a higher major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival rate up to 4 years after repair (69.9% [95% CI, 68.3%-71.3%] vs 72.9% [95% CI, 71.4%-74.4%]). Cumulative incidence of reintervention was higher among patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR at the 7-year follow-up (45.9% [95% CI, 44.1%-47.8%] vs 42.2% [95% CI, 40.4%-44.0%]). Survival analyses demonstrated no statistically significant differences in long-term survival, reintervention, and secondary rupture for patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR. Kaplan-Meier analysis suggested superior long-term major adverse cardiovascular event-free survival among patients who underwent EVAR compared with those who underwent OSR (32.6% [95% CI, 26.9%-38.4%] vs 14.1% [95% CI, 4.0%-30.4%]; stratified log-rank P < .001) during a maximum follow-up of 13.8 years.Conclusions and relevanceEndovascular aortic repair was not associated with a difference in long-term survival during more than 13 years' maximum follow-up. The reasons for these findings will require studies to consider specific graft makes and models, adherence to instructions for use, and types and reasons for reintervention.

Project description:BackgroundThe U.S. population is aging and projected to undergo an increasing number of general surgical procedures. However, recent trends in the frequency of major abdominal procedures in older adults are currently unknown as improvements in non-operative interventions may obviate the need for major surgery. Thus, we evaluated the trends of major abdominal surgical procedures in older adults in the United States.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study using the National Inpatient Sample from 2002 to 2014 with trend analysis using National Cancer Institute's Joinpoint Trend Analysis Software. We identified the average annual percent change (AAPC) in the yearly frequency of major abdominal surgical procedures in older adults (≥50 years of age).ResultsOur cohort included a total of 3,951,947 survey-weighted discharges that included a major abdominal surgery in adults ≥50 years of age between 2002 and 2014. Of these discharges, 2,529,507 (64.0%) were for elective abdominal surgeries, 2,062,835 (52.0%) were for female patients, and mean (SD) age was 61.4 (15.9) years. The frequency of major abdominal procedures (elective and emergent) decreased for adults aged 65-74 (AAPC: -1.43, -1.75, -1.11, p < 0.0001), 75-84 (AAPC: -2.75, -3.33, -2.16, p < 0.001), and ≥85 (AAPC: -4.07, -4.67, -3.47, p < 0.0001). The AAPC for elective procedures decreased for older adults aged 75-84 (AAPC = -1.65; -2.44, -0.85: p = 0.0001) and >85 (AAPC = -3.53; -4.57, -2.48: p < 0.0001). All age groups showed decreases in emergent procedures in 50-64 (AAPC = -1.76, -2.00, -1.52, p < 0.0001), 65-74 (AAPC = -3.59, -4.03, -3.14, p < 0.0001), 75-84 (AAPC = -3.90, -4.34, -3.46, p < 0.0001), ≥85 (AAPC = -4.58, -4.98, -4.17, p < 0.0001) age groups.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort of older adults, the frequency of emergent and elective major abdominal procedures in adults ≥65 years of age decreased with significant variation among individual procedure types. Future studies are needed to identify the generalizability of our findings to other surgical procedures.

Dataset Information

Prehabilitation in elective surgical interventions - what must the general and abdominal surgeon know.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Prehabilitation in elective surgical interventions - what must the general and abdominal surgeon know.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets