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.

International consensus is needed on a core outcome set to advance the evidence of best practice in cancer prehabilitation services and research.

Prehabilitation aims to optimise patients' physical and psychological status before treatment. The types of outcomes measured to assess the impact of prehabilitation interventions vary across clinical research and service evaluation, limiting the ability to compare between studies and services and to pool data. An international workshop involving academic and clinical experts in cancer prehabilitation was convened in May 2022 at Sheffield Hallam University's Advanced Wellbeing Research Centre, England. The workshop substantiated calls for a core outcome set to advance knowledge and understanding of best practice in cancer prehabilitation and to develop national and international databases to assess outcomes at a population level.

Nutritional aspects of prehabilitation in adults with cirrhosis awaiting liver transplant.

Malnutrition, sarcopenia (low muscle mass), and physical frailty have gained increasing recognition in candidates for liver transplant (LT) as these conditions can impact postoperative functional capacity. Multidimensional prehabilitation programs have been proposed as a safe intervention in adults awaiting LT but the nutritional pillar of prehabilitation has been understudied. This review summarizes the nutritional recommendations for prehabilitation for individuals with cirrhosis awaiting LT. Three major aspects of nutritional prehabilitation are discussed: (1) Assess: Evaluate nutritional status and assess for malnutrition, sarcopenia, and frailty to guide the nutritional prehabilitation intervention intensity, increasing across universal, targeted, and specialist levels; (2) Intervene: Prescribe a nutritional prehabilitation intervention to meet established nutrition guidelines in cirrhosis with a targeted focus on improving nutritional status and muscle health; (3) Reassess: Follow-up based on the required intensity of nutritional care with as needed intervention adjustment. Topics covered in the review include nutritional care levels for prehabilitation, energy prescriptions across body mass index strata, detailed considerations around protein intake (amount, distribution, and quality), carbohydrate and fat intake, other nutritional considerations, and the potential role of dietary supplements and nutraceuticals. Future research is warranted to more accurately evaluate energy needs, evaluate emerging dietary supplementation strategies, and establish the role of nutraceuticals alongside food-based interventions. While the general principles of nutritional prehabilitation are ready for immediate application, future large-scale randomized controlled trials in this space will help to quantify the benefit that can be gained by transitioning the LT approach from passive "transplant waitlist time" to active "transplant preparation time."

A survey of preoperative surgical nutrition practices, opinions, and barriers across Canada.

Malnutrition is prevalent among surgical candidates and associated with adverse outcomes. Despite being potentially modifiable, malnutrition risk screening is not a standard preoperative practice. We conducted a cross-sectional survey to understand healthcare professionals' (HCPs) opinions and barriers regarding screening and treatment of malnutrition. HCPs working with adult surgical patients in Canada were invited to complete an online survey. Barriers to preoperative malnutrition screening were assessed using the Capability Opportunity Motivation-Behaviour model. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative data were analyzed using summative content analysis. Of the 225 HCPs surveyed (n = 111 dietitians, n = 72 physicians, n = 42 allied HCPs), 96%-100% agreed that preoperative malnutrition is a modifiable risk factor associated with worse surgical outcomes and is a treatment priority. Yet, 65% (n = 142/220; dietitians: 88% vs. physicians: 40%) reported screening for malnutrition, which mostly occured in the postoperative period (n = 117) by dietitians (n = 94). Just 42% (48/113) of non-dietitian respondents referred positively screened patients to a dietitian for further assessment and treatment. The most prevalent barriers for malnutrition screening were related to opportunity, including availability of resources (57%, n = 121/212), time (40%, n = 84/212) and support from others (38%, n = 80/212). In conclusion, there is a gap between opinion and practice among surgical HCPs pertaining to malnutrition. Although HCPs agreed malnutrition is a surgical priority, the opportunity to screen for nutrition risk was a great barrier.

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.

Tailoring prehabilitation to address the multifactorial nature of functional capacity for surgery.

Mounting evidence suggests that recovery begins before the surgical incision. The presurgery phase of recovery, namely the preparation for optimal surgical recovery, can be reinforced with prehabilitation. Prehabilitation is the approach of enhancing the functional capacity of the individual to enable them to withstand a stressful event. With this narrative review, we apply the Wilson and Cleary conceptual model of patient outcomes to specify the complex and integrative relationship of health factors that limit functional capacity before surgery. To have the greatest impact on patient outcomes, prehabilitation programs require individualised and coordinated care from medical, nutritional, psychosocial and exercise services.

Socioeconomic status influences participation in cancer prehabilitation and preparation for surgical recovery: A pooled retrospective analysis using a validated area-level socioeconomic status metric.

BACKGROUND: Prehabilitation employs exercise, nutrition, and psychological interventions to optimize physiological status in preparation for surgery. First, we described the extent to which material deprivation index score (MDIS) influenced prehabilitation participation. Second, we evaluated the extent to which prehabilitation influenced recovery as compared to control. METHODS: Pooled patient records from prospective multimodal prehabilitation studies in oncologic surgery were retrospectively examined. Patient postal codes were linked to their MDIS, a validated area-level socioeconomic status (SES) metric, as quintiles 1-5 (1 = highest SES). Functional capacity was evaluated with the 6-min walking test (6MWT) at baseline, before, and 8 weeks post-surgery. Influence of prehabilitation on length of hospital stay (LOS) was explored using generalized linear models with a negative binomial distribution adjusted for age, sex, surgical population, and MDIS. RESULTS: Recruitment records were available from 2014 onwards, yielding 1013 eligible patients for prehabilitation participation with MDIS data. Fewer patients with a low SES enrolled (Q1:62% vs. Q5:47%; P = 0.01) and remained in prehabilitation studies (Q1: 59% vs. Q5: 45%; P = 0.07). Prehabilitation study records were available from 2008 onward, yielding 886 enrolled patients with MDIS data (n = 510 prehabilitation, n = 376 control). Preoperative 6MWT similarly improved by > 20 m in response to prehabilitation across SES strata (P < 0.05). Postoperative 6MWT could not be evaluated due to substantial missing data. Prehabilitation had a significant protective influence on LOS, as compared to control, in unadjusted and adjusted models [adjusted IRR:0.77 (95% CI:0.68 to 0.87; P < 0.001]. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that prehabilitation is effective across all SES; however, participation across SES quintiles was not equal. Barriers to participation must be identified and addressed. Once these barriers are addressed, prehabilitation may reduce surgical disparities among SES.

Nascent to novel methods to evaluate malnutrition and frailty in the surgical patient.

Preoperative nutrition status is an important determinant of surgical outcomes, yet malnutrition assessment is not integrated into all surgical pathways. Given its importance and the high prevalence of malnutrition in patients undergoing surgical procedures, preoperative nutrition screening, assessment, and intervention are needed to improve postoperative outcomes. This narrative review discusses novel methods to assess malnutrition and frailty in the surgical patient. The Global Leadership Initiative for Malnutrition (GLIM) criteria are increasingly used in surgical settings although further spread and implementation are strongly encouraged to help standardize the diagnosis of malnutrition. The use of body composition (ie, reduced muscle mass) as a phenotypic criterion in GLIM may lead to a greater number of patients identified as having malnutrition, which may otherwise be undetected if screened by other diagnostic tools. Skeletal muscle loss is a defining criterion of malnutrition and frailty. Novel direct and indirect approaches to assess muscle mass in clinical settings may facilitate the identification of patients with or at risk for malnutrition. Selected imaging techniques have the additional advantage of identifying myosteatosis (an independent predictor of morbidity and mortality for surgical patients). Feasible pathways for screening and assessing frailty exist and may determine the cost/benefit of surgery, long-term independence and productivity, and the value of undertaking targeted interventions. Finally, the evaluation of nutrition risk and status is essential to predict and mitigate surgical outcomes. Nascent to novel approaches are the future of objectively identifying patients at perioperative nutrition risk and guiding therapy toward optimal perioperative standards of care.

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.

Demystifying Malnutrition to Improve Nutrition Screening and Assessment in Oncology.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with cancer and malnutrition are more likely to experience poor treatment tolerance, prolonged length of hospital stay, and decreased quality of life. Early and sustained nutrition risk screening is the first step to tackling this patient and health care burden. Yet, malnutrition remains largely overlooked and undertreated. Malnutrition mismanagement could be indicative of a systemic misunderstanding. With this narrative review, we aimed to (1) define malnutrition, (2) address common malnutrition misconceptions, and (3) summarize nutrition recommendations for patients with cancer. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and international clinical practice guidelines. CONCLUSION: Malnutrition represents an unbalanced nutritional state that alters body composition and diminishes function. Malnutrition is not always physically obvious, and albumin is not a reliable marker of nutritional status; therefore, systematically screening all patients with a validated nutrition risk screening tool at time of cancer diagnosis, and periodically throughout treatment, is necessary to provide optimal, equitable care. Nutrition risk screening takes less than 1 minute to complete and can be completed by any health care professional. Patients that screen positive for nutrition risk should be referred to a registered nutritionist or dietitian for comprehensive nutritional assessment, diagnosis, and treatment. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: All health care professionals can and should be responsible for preventing and treating malnutrition. Registered nurses can actively participate in improving patient outcomes by screening patients for nutrition risk, weighing patients at every visit, referring patients to dietitians for nutrition treatment, and providing supportive medical management of nutrition impact symptoms such as nausea.

PREPARE trial: a protocol for a multicentre randomised trial of frailty-focused preoperative exercise to decrease postoperative complication rates and disability scores.

INTRODUCTION: Frailty is a strong predictor of adverse postoperative outcomes. Prehabilitation may improve outcomes after surgery for older people with frailty by addressing physical and physiologic deficits. The objective of this trial is to evaluate the efficacy of home-based multimodal prehabilitation in decreasing patient-reported disability and postoperative complications in older people with frailty having major surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a multicentre, randomised controlled trial of home-based prehabilitation versus standard care among consenting patients >60 years with frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale>4) having elective inpatient major non-cardiac, non-neurologic or non-orthopaedic surgery. Patients will be partially blinded; clinicians and outcome assessors will be fully blinded. The intervention consists of >3 weeks of prehabilitation (exercise (strength, aerobic and stretching) and nutrition (advice and protein supplementation)). The study has two primary outcomes: in-hospital complications and patient-reported disability 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes include survival, lower limb function, quality of life and resource utilisation. A sample size of 750 participants (375 per arm) provides >90% power to detect a minimally important absolute difference of 8 on the 100-point patient-reported disability scale and a 25% relative risk reduction in complications, using a two-sided alpha value of 0.025 to account for the two primary outcomes. Analyses will follow intention to treat principles for all randomised participants. All participants will be followed to either death or up to 1 year. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by Clinical Trials Ontario (Project ID: 1785) and our ethics review board (Protocol Approval #20190409-01T). Results will be disseminated through presentation at scientific conferences, through peer-reviewed publication, stakeholder organisations and engagement of social and traditional media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04221295.

Nutrition education: Optimising preparation and recovery for benign oesophageal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Patients requiring upper gastrointestinal surgery for benign oesophageal conditions are at nutrition risk before and after surgery. There is a dearth of published evidence guiding clinicians on effective collaboration with patients to mitigate perioperative nutritional challenges. We conducted a qualitative study aiming to explore patients' perioperative food, nutrition, and educational experiences to guide future care. METHODS: Adult patients who had undergone elective, benign oesophageal surgery were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews within 3 weeks of hospital discharge. Interviews were transcribed and analysed with a reflexive form of inductive thematic analysis in addition to synthesised member checking. RESULTS: Interviews with 12 patients identified three major themes. First, nutrition education fosters a better surgical recovery experience: patients expressed a desire to be prepared for their upcoming surgery and engage in the recovery process with informed food choices. Most patients preferred preoperative education given limited capacity for learning during hospital admission. Second, patients have priorities for nutrition information: patients expressed that educational material should be printed, comprehensive, practical, include familiar foods and focus on managing postoperative physical symptoms. Third, food impacts social and emotional experiences of surgery: resumption of a normal diet was a sign of recovery that enabled social reintegration. Identified themes resonated with Knowles' six-core principles of andragogy. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with benign oesophageal conditions perceived nutrition education to be a vital aspect of surgical preparation and recovery. Re-designing perioperative education with patient input has the potential to improve outcomes and experiences.

Physical and Psychological Health Behavior Changes During the COVID-19 Pandemic that May Inform Surgical Prehabilitation: a Narrative Review.

Purpose of Review: Multimodal prehabilitation aims to improve preoperative health in ways that reduce surgical complications and expedite post-operative recovery. However, the extent to which preoperative health has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic is unclear and evidence for the mitigating effects of prehabilitation in this context has not been elucidated. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced a rapid reorganization of perioperative pathways. Delayed diagnosis and surgery have caused a backlog of cases awaiting surgery increasing the risk of more complex procedures due to disease progression. Poor fitness and preoperative deconditioning are predictive of surgical complications and may be compounded by pandemic-related restrictions to accessing supportive services. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced a rapid reorganization of perioperative pathways. This narrative review aims to summarize the understanding of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on preoperative health and related behaviors and their implication for the need and delivery for prehabilitation to engender improved surgical outcomes. A literature search of Medline was conducted for articles related to preoperative health, prehabilitation, and surgical outcomes published between December 1, 2020 and January 31, 2021. Additional hand searches for relevant publications within the included literature were also conducted through October 15, 2021. Recent Findings: The COVID-19 pandemic, and measures designed to reduce the spread of the virus, have resulted in physical deconditioning, deleterious dietary changes, substance misuse, and heightened anxiety prior to surgery. Due to the adverse health changes prior to surgery, and often protracted waiting time for surgery, there is likely an elevated risk of peri- and post-operative complications. A small number of prehabilitation services and research programmes have been rapidly adapted or implemented to address these needs. Summary: During the COVID-19 pandemic to date, people undergoing surgery have faced a triple threat posed by extended wait times for surgery, reduced access to supportive services, and an elevated risk of poor outcomes. It is imperative that healthcare providers find ways to employ evidence-based prehabilitation strategies that are accessible and safe to mitigate the negative impact of the pandemic on surgical outcomes. Attention should be paid to cohorts most affected by established health inequities and further exacerbated by the pandemic.

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.

From clinical guidelines to practice: The nutrition elements for enhancing recovery after colorectal surgery.

The Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Care System improves patient outcomes. The ERAS Protocol describes multimodal, evidence-based processes that are bundled into >20 care elements, and the ERAS Implementation Program provides strategies to guide the successful adoption of the care elements. Although formal training is essential to implement ERAS correctly, with this article we aim to bridge the gap between the nutritionally relevant care elements of the protocol and their implementation for colorectal surgery. This article also describes how dietitians can support optimal patient outcomes by playing an active role in implementing, monitoring, and evaluating ERAS practices.

Examining guidelines and new evidence in oncology nutrition: a position paper on gaps and opportunities in multimodal approaches to improve patient care.

Malnutrition, muscle loss, and cachexia are prevalent in cancer and remain key challenges in oncology today. These conditions are frequently underrecognized and undertreated and have devastating consequences for patients. Early nutrition screening/assessment and intervention are associated with improved patient outcomes. As a multifaceted disease, cancer requires multimodal care that integrates supportive interventions, specifically nutrition and exercise, to improve nutrient intake, muscle mass, physical functioning, quality of life, and treatment outcomes. An integrated team of healthcare providers that incorporates societies' recommendations into clinical practice can help achieve the best possible outcomes. A multidisciplinary panel of experts in oncology, nutrition, exercise, and medicine participated in a 2-day virtual roundtable in October 2020 to discuss gaps and opportunities in oncology nutrition, alone and in combination with exercise, relative to current evidence and international societies' recommendations. The panel recommended five principles to optimize clinical oncology practice: (1) position oncology nutrition at the center of multidisciplinary care; (2) partner with colleagues and administrators to integrate a nutrition care process into the multidisciplinary cancer care approach; (3) screen all patients for malnutrition risk at diagnosis and regularly throughout treatment; (4) combine exercise and nutrition interventions before (e.g., prehabilitation), during, and after treatment as oncology standard of care to optimize nutrition status and muscle mass; and (5) incorporate a patient-centered approach into multidisciplinary care.

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.

Patients' perspectives of prehabilitation as an extension of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocols.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) and prehabilitation programs are evidence-based and patient-focused, yet meaningful patient input could further enhance these interventions to produce superior patient outcomes and patient experiences. We conducted a qualitative study with patients who had undergone colorectal surgery under ERAS care to determine how they prepared for surgery, their views on prehabilitation and how prehabilitation could be delivered to best meet patient needs. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with adult patients who had undergone colorectal surgery under ERAS care within 3 months after surgery. Patients were enrolled between April 2018 and June 2019 through purposive sampling from 1 hospital in Alberta. The interview transcripts were analyzed independently by a researcher and a trained patient-researcher using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty patients were interviewed. Three main themes were identified. First, waiting for surgery: patients described fear, anxiety, isolation and deterioration of their mental and physical states as they waited passively for surgery. Second, preparing would have been better than just waiting: patients perceived that a prehabilitation program could prepare them for their operation if it addressed their emotional and physical needs, provided personalized support, offered home strategies, involved family and included surgical expectations (both what to expect and what is expected of them). Third, partnering with patients: preoperative preparation should occur on a continuum that meets patients where they are at and in a partnership that respects patients' expertise and desired level of engagement. CONCLUSION: We identified several patient priorities for the preoperative period. Integrating these priorities within ERAS and prehabilitative programs could improve patient satisfaction, experiences and outcomes. Actively engaging patients in their care might alleviate some of the anxiety and fear associated with waiting passively for surgery.