The effectiveness of prehabilitation or preoperative ...

0 downloads 0 Views 824KB Size Report
Any preoperative exercise interventions identified in the study as part of a ... Preoperative care; surgery; prehabilitation; preoperative rehabilitation; presurgical ...
JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports

2015;13(1) 146 - 187

The effectiveness of prehabilitation or preoperative exercise for surgical patients: a systematic review CJ Cabilan, RN, BN

1

Sonia Hines, RN, Cert IV TAE, BN, Grad Dip Ed (Tertiary & Adult), MAppSci (Research) Judy Munday, RN, DipEd (Nurs), BA (Hons)

1

1

1. Nursing Research Centre, Mater Health Services; Nursing Research Centre, Mater Health Services; the Queensland Centre for Evidence Based Nursing and Midwifery: a Collaborating Centre of the Joanna Briggs Institute

Corresponding author: CJ Cabilan [email protected]

Executive summary Background Major surgery can induce functional decline and pain, which can also have negative implications on health care utilization and quality of life. Prehabilitation is the process of optimizing physical functionality preoperatively to enable the individual to maintain a normal level of function during and after surgery. Prehabilitation training can be a combination of aerobic exercises, strength training, and functional task training to suit individual needs. Objectives To evaluate the impact of prehabilitation on physical functional status, health care utilization, quality of life, and pain after surgery. Inclusion criteria Types of participants Studies of adult surgical patients, excluding day surgery patients. Types of interventions Any preoperative exercise interventions identified in the study as part of a prehabilitation or preoperative exercise program, versus usual care.

Cabilan et al. The effectiveness of prehabilitation or preoperative exercise for surgical patients: a systematic review © the authors 2015 doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1885 Page 146

JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports

2015;13(1) 146 - 187

Types of studies Randomized controlled trials. Types of outcomes Functional status, health care utilization, quality of life and pain. Search strategy Published (CINAHL, CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PEDro) and unpublished studies between 1996 and March 2013 were searched extensively. Methodological quality All studies were assessed independently by two reviewers for relevance, eligibility and methodological quality. Data collection Data from included papers were extracted using a modified data extraction tool. Data synthesis Where possible, study results were pooled in statistical meta-analysis. Alternatively, results are presented in narrative and table form. Results A total of 3167 citations were identified; after removal of duplicates, assessment for relevance and eligibility, 33 studies underwent critical appraisal. Seventeen studies met the quality criteria and were included in quantitative synthesis. Thirteen studies were conducted in orthopedics (mainly knee or hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis), one in colorectal, two in cardiac and one in upper gastrointestinal/hepatobiliary. Function, pain and quality of life were quantified according to prehabilitation dose and postoperative months. Prehabilitation, at any dose, did not demonstrate benefits in objective and self-reported function at any of the postoperative time points. Prehabilitation did not demonstrate benefits in quality of life or pain; however, there was significant evidence that prehabilitation doses of more than 500 minutes reduced the need for postoperative rehabilitation, but no significant reduction was found in readmissions or nursing home placement. Conclusions Results from this review reveal that prehabilitation has no significant postoperative benefits in function, quality of life and pain in patients who have had knee or hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis; however, there is evidence that prehabilitation may reduce admission to rehabilitation in this population. The evidence on postoperative benefits of prehabilitation in other surgical populations is limited; however, preliminary evidence does not demonstrate better outcomes.

Cabilan et al. The effectiveness of prehabilitation or preoperative exercise for surgical patients: a systematic review © the authors 2015 doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1885 Page 147

JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports

2015;13(1) 146 - 187

Implications for practice There is no evidence that prehabilitation provides benefits in function, pain or quality of life in patients who have had arthroplasty for osteoarthritis; however prehabilitation doses of more than 500 minutes might reduce acute rehabilitation admissions. The evidence is insufficient to provide recommendations on the benefits of prehabilitation in other surgical populations. Implications for research Future prehabilitation studies are not recommended in patients with osteoarthritis for whom arthroplasty is planned. However, should prehabilitation be tested in other surgical populations, programs must consider patient suitability, setting, delivery of intervention and clinical effectiveness. It is also recommended that the exercises prescribed should be maintained and adhered to after surgery. Most importantly, prehabilitation studies must have adequately powered sample sizes. Keywords Preoperative care; surgery; prehabilitation; preoperative rehabilitation; presurgical rehabilitation; preoperative exercise; preoperative training; exercise; exercise training

Background Physical functional decline is very common after major surgery. It can lead to loss of independence of 1

activities of daily living, such as walking, toileting, and home care activities; increased incidence of rehabilitation unit admission and nursing home placement for the elderly

1, 2

; longer hospital length of stay

(LOS); development of postoperative complications; poor health-related quality of life (QOL); and morbidity.

3

Inactivity is well documented as one of the leading causes of physical functional decline. 7

4-6

Inactivity has

2

been observed amongst all hospitalized individuals regardless of their present condition. Increased pain and anxiety about activity due to "fear of injury"

8(p.195)

after surgery are amongst the contributing factors.

8

Individuals who experience physical functional decline have the tendency to enter a continuing cycle of 9

added inactivity due to their limited physical capacity. Prolonged inactivity may inhibit normal functioning of major organ systems such as the cardiovascular system, cardiopulmonary system and musculoskeletal 4

system. Every individual’s functional ability (defined as ability to perform activities of daily living) dependent on the overall functioning of the major organ systems

10

is

11,12

, therefore a decline in one or more of

the organ systems also means a decline of functional ability. For example, a reduction in aerobic capacity as well as ineffective ventilation and perfusion limit the individual’s capacity to perform physical tasks 9

such as functional walking ; orthostatic hypotension and decreased muscle strength put the individual at a greater risk of falls and injury.

10,12,13

Preoperative physical functional status also contributes to postoperative physical functional decline. Evidence indicates that individuals who have limited physical fitness preoperatively have higher rates of morbidity and mortality during their hospital stay.

14

Conversely, individuals who have better preoperative

physical fitness experience less postoperative pain and have better physical functional status postoperatively.

15

Cabilan et al. The effectiveness of prehabilitation or preoperative exercise for surgical patients: a systematic review © the authors 2015 doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1885 Page 148

JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports

2015;13(1) 146 - 187

Increasing physical activity is the most effective intervention to counteract physical functional decline after surgery. Therapeutic exercise is a form of physical activity that has been known to improve physical 9

fitness (defined as the capacity to carry out daily functional tasks). Current evidence supports exercise rehabilitation to enhance physical fitness after surgery.

8,9

Exercise rehabilitation has been used widely as

a beneficial and effective intervention to re-establish the individual’s postoperative functional status independence.

16

15

and

Although these outcomes can be achieved through exercise rehabilitation, it has been

argued that the body deconditions faster than it recovers.

4,13,17

For example, low-intensity exercises

strengthen the muscles at only 6% per week while inactivity induces 10%-15% loss of muscle strength 6

per week. Hence re-attainment of muscle strength is only possible with prolonged intensive exercise rehabilitation.

8

It would therefore be reasonable to optimize functional status through preoperative rehabilitation or prehabilitation (prehab) before surgery. Prehab is defined as the “process of enhancing functional capacity of the individual to enable him or her to withstand the stressor of inactivity”.

12(p.268)

Prehab aims

to maintain a normal level of functionality and achieve a quicker recovery of functional status during postoperative inactivity.

11,12,18

The theory of prehab originated in sports medicine where athletes train

intensively before a competition to prevent injuries.

11

In a medical context, prehab is employed to prevent

physical functional decline. Currently prehab programs do not have standardized exercise protocols.

14

For

example, the types of exercise and exercise duration intensity and frequency vary across organizations, but generic prehabilitation programs include the following exercises: three to five minutes of warm-up exercise, five minutes of aerobics up to two to three times per week, eight repetitions of strengthening exercise two days per week, 30-second flexibility exercise, and up to five repetitions of functional task training two to three times per week.

12(p.272)

It is believed that prehab training is proportionate to its impact

on physical functional status; therefore longer and intensive prehab training maximizes functional status.

11

Moreover, the length of prehab training has also not yet been standardized but the duration of training commonly ranges from four to eight weeks.

3,19

The effectiveness of prehab in terms of functional status, postoperative complications and hospital LOS has been increasingly explored through clinical experiments and systematic reviews especially in orthopedic settings. A systematic review indicated that prehab did not enhance either objective or selfreported postoperative functioning in patients who have had total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA) for osteoarthritis.

19

Another systematic review in the same population also showed that

prehab had not demonstrated effectiveness in terms of reduction of postoperative complications and 3

LOS. However, in cardiac patients who have had coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or abdominal aortic aneurysm, prehab in the form of inspiratory muscle training showed significant reductions in postoperative pulmonary complications, and LOS. Both reviews

3,19

3

offer limited data on the impact of prehabilitation on physical functional status in other

surgical populations such as cardiac, colorectal and thoracic surgeries. Additionally, the effectiveness of prehab in terms of health care utilization (HCU), QOL and pain in these surgical populations has not yet been explored in a systematic review. Therefore, it was necessary to conduct this systematic review. The objectives, inclusion criteria and methods of analysis for this review were specified in advance and documented in a protocol.

20

Cabilan et al. The effectiveness of prehabilitation or preoperative exercise for surgical patients: a systematic review © the authors 2015 doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1885 Page 149

JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports

2015;13(1) 146 - 187

Definitions Gait Speed – a measure of walking speed; measures the amount of time (seconds) taken to walk on 60m level ground.

21

Six-minute Walk Test (6MWT) – measures distance covered in 6 minutes; used to measure functional walking capacity.

22

Timed-Up-and-Go (TUG) – measures functional mobility, strength, balance and agility; amount of time (seconds) an individual takes from sitting, 6-metre return walk to the chair, and back to sitting position.

22

Iowa Level of Assistance Scale (ILAS) –measures function in TKA and THA patients according to the level of assistance (independent, supervised, minimal assistance, moderate assistance, maximal assistance, failed to achieve and not tested) in the following tasks: get out of bed, stand up from bed, walking, and climb up and down three steps. It is scored 0 to 50, with a higher score indicating lower functional ability.

23,24

Functional Independence Measure (FIM) –assesses a person’s ability to perform activities of daily living such as self-care, toileting, mobility and transfers, and cognitive assessment. It is scored 18 to 126 and can be categorized as: complete dependence (18), moderate dependence (19 to 60), mild dependence (61 to 103), independence (104 to 126).

25

Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) – is a measure for joint pain, stiffness, and physical function in osteoarthritis. Pain is measured in a scale of 0 to 20 point, stiffness is measured from 0 to 8 scale, and function is measured from 0 to 68 scale. Higher scores indicate poor status.

21,26,27

Short-Form Health Survey 36 (SF-36) – is a measure of general health status or QOL. The scale measures eight domains: physical functioning, role limitation (physical), social functioning, bodily pain, general mental health, role limitation (emotional), vitality and general health.

28

These can be also

categorized into two: physical QOL (summary of physical functioning, role (physical), bodily pain and general health), and mental QOL (summary of social functioning, mental health, role (emotional), vitality.

26,29,30

Higher scores in individual domains or in summary scores indicate better QOL.

Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) – is a measure of pain. Scoring is usually from 0 to 10 or 0 to 100, no pain to worst pain.

31

Objectives The objectives of this systematic review were to synthesize the best available evidence on the effectiveness of prehab in adults on the following postoperative outcomes: physical functional status, HCU, QOL and pain.

Inclusion criteria Types of participants We included studies of adult patients (18 years and older) undergoing surgery in hospitals with the exception of day surgery patients.

Cabilan et al. The effectiveness of prehabilitation or preoperative exercise for surgical patients: a systematic review © the authors 2015 doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1885 Page 150

JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports

2015;13(1) 146 - 187

Types of intervention(s) This review considered any preoperative exercise interventions identified in the study as part of a prehab or preoperative exercise program, versus usual care. We excluded studies that compared the effectiveness of different types of preoperative exercise, for example, aerobics versus strength training. Types of outcomes Primary outcome: For the purpose of this review, functional status referred to the whole physical functional capacity or performance necessary to attend to the basic activities of daily living or perform routine roles.

32

Therefore, individual physiologic functions such as range of motion, muscle strength or

exercise capacity were not included. Functional status was measured by the ability to perform a functional task such as mobility or activities of daily living. Secondary outcomes: HCU was measured by the number of admissions to acute rehabilitation, readmission or nursing home placement. QOL measures are detailed in the results section. Pain was measured as part of the WOMAC scale

21,26,27

or VAS.

31

Types of studies Experimental study designs (e.g. randomized controlled trials [RCTs], non-randomized trials and quasiexperimental design) published from 1996 to March 2013 were eligible for inclusion. The dates were chosen based on the search results data obtained from the Medline Trend application.

33

Due to limited

funding support for translators, this review was limited to include only English language studies.

Search strategy The databases were searched for published and unpublished studies from 1996 to March 2013. Published studies were searched in the following databases: CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PEDro. Unpublished studies were searched for in OpenGrey, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Additional studies were searched in the following trials registries: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ClinicalTrials.gov and EU Clinical Trials Register. We initially used the following terms: Preoperative care Surgery Prehabilitation OR preoperative rehabilitation OR presurgical rehabilitation OR preoperative exercise* OR preoperative training Exercise* OR exercise training The final search terms used for each database are outlined in Appendix I.

Method of the review Initially, all identified studies were assessed independently by two reviewers (CC and SH) for relevance based on the title and abstract. Subsequently, the full-text versions of all potentially relevant studies were

Cabilan et al. The effectiveness of prehabilitation or preoperative exercise for surgical patients: a systematic review © the authors 2015 doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1885 Page 151

JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports

2015;13(1) 146 - 187

independently verified for study eligibility based on our inclusion criteria (i.e. experimental study, participants of ≥18 years of age, preoperative exercise interventions, outcome of interest, English language, and published between 1996 – March 2013) using the Verification of Study Eligibility form (Appendix II). Further, the references of all studies included in the verification process were also searched for additional studies. After the verification process, the selected studies underwent critical appraisal using the Joanna Briggs Institute Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (JBIMAStARI) for experimental studies. Disagreements between the two reviewers (CC and SH) were resolved through discussion, and the third reviewer (JM).

Data collection Mean and standard deviation were extracted for functional status, QOL and pain’ and proportions were obtained for HCU using the modified JBI data extraction form for experimental studies (Appendix III). Where standard error (SE) was reported instead of standard deviation (SD), SD was calculated using this 34 formula: 𝑆𝐷 = 𝑆𝐸 × √𝑁 when necessary for pooling of results. Costing data for HCU were not extracted because this was not an outcome of interest in this review. Where studies had three treatment arms, only data from prehab and usual care groups were extracted. groups, results are presented in narrative form.

23,35

Where a study had two prehab

36

Data synthesis Where possible, study results were pooled in statistical meta-analysis using Review Manager 5.2 software.

37

Effect sizes were expressed as standard mean difference (SMD) for functional status, QOL

and pain; and odds ratio (OR) for HCU and their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity 2 of pooled studies was assessed using the I statistic and its accompanying p value. Results of the studies that could not be included in the meta-analysis are presented in narrative form. In the narrative, results are presented as mean (SD), mean (SE), or median (interquartile range or IQR) and their accompanying p values as reported in the studies.

Results Description of studies The search and study selection process is summarized in Figure 1. The search identified 3167 potentially relevant citations from published literature, unpublished literature and trial registries. After duplicates (n=107) were removed, 2953 citations were screened for potential eligibility by the two reviewers (CC and SH) based on the title and abstract. After the screening process, 2871 citations were excluded and 189 citations were retrieved and went through to the Verification of Study Eligibility

34

process.

Thirty-three studies met eligibility criteria and went through critical appraisal using JBI-MAStARI for experimental studies. Seventeen studies

21,23,25-27,29,30,35,36,38-45

met quality criteria and were therefore

included in the quantitative synthesis. Details of the included studies and their population characteristics are detailed in Appendix IV. Of the 17 RCTs, 13 studies were conducted in the orthopedic setting: 21,23,27,29,35,36,41,44,45

TKA,

26,40,43,44

THA,

and spinal surgery.

42

The TKA and THA studies were conducted in

patients with osteoarthritis. The remaining studies were conducted in the following settings: colorectal

Cabilan et al. The effectiveness of prehabilitation or preoperative exercise for surgical patients: a systematic review © the authors 2015 doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1885 Page 152

JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports

surgery,

39

cardiac for participants awaiting coronary artery bypass graft,

gastrointestinal/hepatobiliary surgery.

2015;13(1) 146 - 187 30,38

and upper

25

61 CENTRAL 299 CINAHL 761 EMBASE 41 MEDLINE 174 PEDro 591 ClinicalTrials.gov 11 EU Clinical Trials Registry 569 ANZCTR 45 OpenGrey 615 ProQuest Dissertations and Theses

3167 citations identified through database searching

107 duplicates removed

3060 citations after duplicates remove

2871 citations excluded

189 citations through to verification

156 studies excluded: 3=not the target population, 3=not in English,

of study eligibility

63= not experimental study design, 87=not the intervention/outcome of interest 33 studies through to critical appraisal 16 excluded, did not meet quality criteria

17 studies included in quantitative synthesis

Figure 1: Study flow diagram

46

Cabilan et al. The effectiveness of prehabilitation or preoperative exercise for surgical patients: a systematic review © the authors 2015 doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1885 Page 153

JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports

2015;13(1) 146 - 187

Methodological quality Studies that met the eligibility criteria were subsequently appraised for methodological quality (Table 1). Disagreements regarding results of the critical appraisal were resolved with discussion and involvement of the third reviewer (JM). The methodological quality of the included studies was acceptable; however, blinding of participants was not explicit in all of the studies. A total of 16 studies were excluded: 13 studies did not meet quality criteria

47-59

and three studies had

limited information on allocation, blinding and randomization (authors were contacted to supply needed information but no responses were received).

60-62

Details of the excluded studies are presented in

Appendix V.

Cabilan et al. The effectiveness of prehabilitation or preoperative exercise for surgical patients: a systematic review © the authors 2015 doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1885 Page 154

JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports

2015;13(1) 146 - 187

Table 1: Critical appraisal of studies 1) Was the

2) Were

3) Was

4) Were

5) Were

6) Were the

7) Were

8) Were

9) Were

10) Was

assignment

participants

allocation

the

those

control and

groups

outcomes

outcomes

appropriate

to

blinded to

to

outcomes

assessing

treatment

treated

measured

measured

statistical

treatment

treatment

treatment

of people

outcomes

groups

identically

in the

in a

analysis

groups truly

allocation?

groups

who

blind to

comparable

other than

same way

reliable

used?

concealed

withdrew

the

at entry?

for the

for all

way?

from the

described

treatment

named

groups?

allocator?

and

allocation

intervention

included

?

s?

random?

FINAL

in the analysis Arthur et al.

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

INC

al.

No

Uc

Uc

Yes

Uc

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

EXC

et

Yes

No

Uc

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

INC

Brown (2010)

Uc

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

EXC

Brown et al.

Uc

No

No

No

No

Uc

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

EXC

Yes

No

No

No

Uc

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

INC

Uc

Uc

Uc

Uc

Uc

Uc

Uc

Uc

Uc

Uc

EXC

Yes

Uc

Uc

Yes

Uc

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

INC

(2000) Back

et

(2008) Beaupre al. (2004)

(2012) Carli

et

al.

(2010) Carver et al. (2011) D'Lima et al.

Cabilan et al. The effectiveness of prehabilitation or preoperative exercise for surgical patients: a systematic review © the authors 2015 doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-20151885 Page 155

JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports

2015;13(1) 146 - 187

(1996) Evgeniadis et

Yes

Uc

Uc

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

INC

Yes

No

Uc

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

INC

Uc

Uc

Uc

No

Uc

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Uc

EXC

Yes

Uc

Uc

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Uc

EXC

Yes

No

Uc

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

INC

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

INC

No

No

No

Uc

Uc

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

INC

Yes

No

Uc

Uc

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Uc

Yes

EXC

No

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Uc

Yes

EXC

Uc

Uc

Uc

Uc

Uc

Uc

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

EXC

Uc

Uc

Uc

No

Uc

Uc

Yes

Yes

Yes

Uc

EXC

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Uc

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

INC

al. (2009) Ferrara et al. (2008) Gilbey et al. (2003) Gocen et al. (2004) Gstoettner et al. (2011) Hoogeboom et al. (2010) Huang et al. (2012) Jarvis et al. (2005) Keays et al. (2006) McGregor et al. (2004) McKay et al. (2012) Mitchell et al. (2005)

Cabilan et al. The effectiveness of prehabilitation or preoperative exercise for surgical patients: a systematic review © the authors 2015 doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-20151885 Page 156

JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports

Nielsen et al.

2015;13(1) 146 - 187

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

INC

Yes

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

INC

Uc

No

No

Uc

No

No

Yes

Yes

Uc

Yes

EXC

Yes

No

Uc

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

INC

Yes

No

Uc

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

INC

Uc

Uc

Uc

Uc

Uc

Uc

Uc

Uc

Uc

Uc

EXC

Yes

No

Uc

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

INC

Uc

No

Uc

No

Uc

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

EXC

al.

Uc

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

INC

Vukomanovic

Uc

No

Uc

No

Uc

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

EXC

Uc

Uc

Uc

Uc

Uc

Uc

Uc

Uc

Uc

Uc

EXC

Uc

No

No

Uc

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

EXC

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

INC

(2010) Oosting et al. (2012) Rodgers

et

al. (1998) Rooks et al. (2006) Rosenfeldt et al. (2011) Saey

(not

published) Soares et al. (2013) Swank et al. (2011) Topp

et

(2009)

et al. (2008) Walther et al. (2010) Wang et al. (2002) Williamson et

Cabilan et al. The effectiveness of prehabilitation or preoperative exercise for surgical patients: a systematic review © the authors 2015 doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-20151885 Page 157

JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports

2015;13(1) 146 - 187

al. (2007) INC = included; EXC = excluded; Uc = unclear

Cabilan et al. The effectiveness of prehabilitation or preoperative exercise for surgical patients: a systematic review © the authors 2015 doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-20151885 Page 158

JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports

2015;13(1) 146 - 187

Findings of the review Studies had different postoperative follow-up time points and prehab doses; therefore we decided to categorize our results for each outcome into: 1 month (POM1), 3 months (POM3), 6 months (POM6), and 12 months (POM12); and total prehab minutes: 60-

51

58

per

week Exercises: Progressive

Cabilan et al. The effectiveness of prehabilitation or preoperative exercise for surgical patients: a systematic review © the authors 2015 doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-20151885 Page 179

JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports

2015;13(1) 146 - 187

strengthening

exercises

and resistance training, and education Mitchell

et al

RCT

UK

2005

 Self-reported function  QOL  Pain

Duration: ?≥ 8 weeks

Usual care

57

57

Frequency: minimum of

70.0

70.6

(7.2)

(8.2)

65

69

(8)

(8)

70.0(

69.6

8.79)

(10)

63.2

52.6

?

?

50

57

35.7

33.9

(9.2)

(6.5)

32.8

32.7

(5.68

(6.45

)

)

3 1-hour sessions per week Exercises: Knee flexion and

extension

techniques, gait training, and functional training. Duration: 6 weeks Rooks

et

al

RCT

USA

2006 (TKA)

 Objective and selfreported function  Healthcare utilization  QOL  Pain

Preoperative

Frequency: x3 30 to 60minute

sessions

per

15

education about falls and

injury

risk

+

telephone follow-up

week Exercises:

14

Progressive

and personalized water and

land-based

exercises, cardiovascular training, strength training, and flexibility exercises Williamson al 2007

et

Threegroup RCT

UK

 Objective and selfreported function  Pain

Duration: 6 weeks Frequency: one 60-min

Usual

care

exercise advise

with

60

61

52

54

sessions per week Exercises: Static

quadriceps

contractions, inner range

Cabilan et al. The effectiveness of prehabilitation or preoperative exercise for surgical patients: a systematic review © the authors 2015 doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-20151885 Page 180

JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports

2015;13(1) 146 - 187

quadriceps contractions, straight leg raises, sit-tostands,

stair

climbing,

calf stretches, Theraband resisted knee extensions, wobble

board

balance

training,

knee

flexion/extension on

gym

sitting

ball,

and

freestanding

peddle

revolutions. Evgeniadis

et

al 2009

Three-

Greece

 Objective function  QOL

group

Duration: 3 weeks

Usual care

18

20

Frequency: ?

67.1

69.4

(4.4)

(1.9)

83

70

RCT Exercises:

Warm-up,

34.7

33.4

3

6

(5.29

(4.71

)

)

32.1

32.0

6

0

(5.87

(6.09

)

)

27.4

28.2

strengthening exercises, resistance training, and cool-down Topp et al 2009

RCT

USA

 Objective function

Duration:

 Pain

Frequency: week

4

weeks

Usual care

26

28

x3 per

sessions

supervised/two

64.1(

63.5(

7.05)

6.68)

?

?

(one self-

directed with log-book) Exercises: resistance training, step training, and walking Gstoettner et al 2011

RCT

Austria

 Objective and selfreported function  Pain

Duration: 6 weeks Frequency:

one

Usual care 45-

minute session per week Exercises:

18

20

72.8

66.9(

(65-

61-

78)

75)

89

70

Warm-up,

Cabilan et al. The effectiveness of prehabilitation or preoperative exercise for surgical patients: a systematic review © the authors 2015 doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-20151885 Page 181

JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports

2015;13(1) 146 - 187

stretching, balance and strengthening

exercises

+daily

exercise

instructions Huang

et

al

RCT

Taiwan

 Pain

2012

Duration: 4 weeks

Usual care

126

117

Frequency: 40 minutes

69.8

70.5(

(7.2)

7.4)

63.8

63.0

2(9.0

8(6.8

1)

9)

77

75(5)

69.8

73.5

27.1(

27.2

4.0)

(4.5)

daily Exercises: straight leg raising, ankle

knee

setting,

pumping,

hip

abduction

with

resistance,

and

strengthening exercise

Orthopedics – THA Ferrara

et

al

RCT

Italy

2008

 Self-reported function  QOL  Pain

Duration: 4 weeks Frequency: minute

x5

sessions

Usual care

11

12

60per

63

58

?

?

70

63.6

26.0(

27.4

week Exercises: Strength and flexibility training

Hoogeboom et al 2010

RCT

Netherlands

 Objective function

Duration: 3-6 weeks Frequency:

x2

Usual care 60-

10

11

(3)

minute per week Exercises:

Warm-up,

strengthening exercises, 20-30

minutes

aerobic

Cabilan et al. The effectiveness of prehabilitation or preoperative exercise for surgical patients: a systematic review © the authors 2015 doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-20151885 Page 182

2.6)

(4.2)

JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports exercise,

2015;13(1) 146 - 187 functional

training Rooks

et

al

RCT

USA

2006 (THA)

 Objective and selfreported function  Healthcare utilization  QOL Pain

Duration: 6 weeks

Preoperative

Frequency: x3 30 to 60minute

sessions

per

25

24

education about falls and

injury

risk

65

59

(11)

(7)

76.9(

75.0(

6.3)

6.3)

48(3

52(2

1-

3-

80)*

88)*

63

52

28.4

30.3

(5.3)

(9.1)

28.6

27.8

(5.6)

(4.2)

25

26

(21–

(17–

33)

33)

+

telephone follow-up

week Exercises:

Progressive

and personalized water and

land-based

exercises, cardiovascular training, strength training, and flexibility exercises Oosting et al

RCT

Netherlands

2012

 Objective and selfreported function  QOL  Pain

Duration: 3-6 weeks

Usual care

14

12

Frequency: supervised – x2

93

67

30-minute sessions

per week; self-training – x4 30-minute sessions Exercises: activity

functional

training,

and

functional walking

Orthopedics - spinal surgery Nielsen 2010

et

al

RCT

Denmark

 Objective and selfreported function  QOL  Pain

Duration: 6-8 weeks

Usual care

Frequency: 30 minutes per day

28

32

61

59

Exercises: strengthening exercises

and

Cabilan et al. The effectiveness of prehabilitation or preoperative exercise for surgical patients: a systematic review © the authors 2015 doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-20151885 Page 183

JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports

2015;13(1) 146 - 187

cardiovascular conditioning

Cardiac - CABG Arthur

et

al

RCT

Canada

 QOL

2000

Duration: >8 weeks Frequency: minute

x2

Usual care

123

123

90-

61.8(

63.8(

8.4)

7.8)

62.5(

68

12.2

17.1

?

?

22

30

?

?

supervised

sessions per week Exercises: with

Warm-up

ROM,

stretching,

aerobics (minimum of 30 minutes), cool-down and stretching + preoperative teaching Rosenfeldt et al 2011

RCT

Australia

 QOL

Duration: 2 weeks Frequency:

x2

Usual care 60-

minute exercise sessions per

week,

and

30-60

60

57

5968.5)

(5877)*

*

minutes of exercises at home Exercises: exercises treadmill

aerobic e.g.

bicycle,

walking,

and

arm ergometry + mental stress reduction

Colorectal

Cabilan et al. The effectiveness of prehabilitation or preoperative exercise for surgical patients: a systematic review © the authors 2015 doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-20151885 Page 184

JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports Carli et al 2010

RCT

Canada

 Objective function

2015;13(1) 146 - 187

Duration: 3-6 weeks Frequency:

3.5

Walking

hours

breathing

and

58

54

exercises

61(1

60(1

6)

5)

58.6

57

28(6)

27(5)

58.5

55.0

(51.3

(49.3

50

44

23.6

24.2

(19.7

(21.3









63.5*

64.3)

25.9)

28.4)

)

*

recommendation

per week Exercises:

cycling,

weight-training

Upper GI/Hepatobiliary Soares

et

al

RCT

2013

Brazil

 Objective function

Duration: 2-3 weeks Frequency: minute

Usual care

x2

50-

sessions

per

week Exercises: Trunk muscle upper extremity

16

stretching,

rotation,

breathing,

16

Deep

respiratory

training,

active

and

lower exercises,

walking, and relaxation. P = Prehabilitation group

TKA = total knee replacement

CABG = coronary artery bypass graft

Median(IQR)*

UC = Usual care

THA = total hip replacement

QOL = quality of life

? = unspecified

Cabilan et al. The effectiveness of prehabilitation or preoperative exercise for surgical patients: a systematic review © the authors 2015 doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-20151885 Page 185

JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports

2015;13(1) 146 - 187

Appendix V: Summary of excluded studies 1. Bäck M, Wennerblom B, Wittboldt S, Cider A. Effects of high frequency exercise in patients before and after elective percutaneous coronary intervention. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2008:307-313 Reason for exclusion: Did not meet quality criteria. 2. Brown, K. Comparing pre- and post-surgical self-efficacy behavior changes by introducing prehabilitation exercise [PhD thesis]. University of Louisville: Kentucky; 2010. Reason for exclusion: Did not meet quality criteria. 3. Brown K, Topp R, Brosky J, Lajoie A. Prehabilitation and quality of life three months after total knee arthroplasty: a pilot study. Percept Motor Skill. 2012;115(3): 765-774. Reason for exclusion: Did not meet quality criteria. 4. Carver T, Mayo N, Andersen R, Zavorsky G. Pilot investigation to evaluate changes in exercise capacity following a prehabilitation intervention among seriously obese patients awaiting bariatric surgery. Canadian Journal of Diabetes 2011;35 (2):149. Reason for exclusion: Limited data presented in abstract – no response from author. 5. Gilbey H, Ackland T, Wang A, Morton A, Trouchet T, Tapper J. Exercise improves early functional recovery after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat R. 2003;408:193-200. Reason for exclusion: Unclear methodology 6. Gocen Z, Sen A, Unver B, Karatosun, Gunal I.The effect of preoperative physiotherapy and education on the outcome of total hip replacement: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2004;18(4): 353-358. Reason for exclusion: Poor reporting 7. Jarvis S, Hallam T, Lujic S, Abbott K, Vancaillie T. Peri-operative physiotherapy improves outcomes for women undergoing incontinence and or prolapse surgery: results of a randomised controlled trial. Aust Nz J Obstet Gyn. 2005;45(4):300-303. Reason for exclusion: Did not meet quality criteria. 8. Keays S, Bullock-Saxton, Newcombe P, Bullock M. The effectiveness of a pre-operative home-based physiotherapy programme for chronic anterior cruciate ligament deficiency [corrected] [published erratum appears in Phys Res Int. 2006;12(3):195]. Phys Res Int. 2006;11(4): 204-218. Reason for exclusion: Did not meet quality criteria. 9. McGregor A, Rylands H, Owen A, Dore C, Hughes S. Does preoperative hip rehabilitation advice improve recovery and patient satisfaction? J Arthroplasty. 2004;19(4):464-468.Reason for exclusion: The methods of allocation and randomization were unclear; baseline data of participants not reported. 10. McKay C, Prapavessis H, Doherty T. The effect of a prehabilitation exercise program on quadriceps strength for patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled pilot study. PM and R. 2012;4(9): 647-656. Reason for exclusion: Did not meet quality criteria.

Cabilan et al. The effectiveness of prehabilitation or preoperative exercise for surgical patients: a systematic review © the authors 2015 doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1885 Page 186

JBI Database of Systematic Reviews & Implementation Reports

2015;13(1) 146 - 187

11. Rodgers J, Garvin K, Walker C, Morford D, Urban J, Berdard J. Preoperative physical therapy in primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13(4): 414-421. Reason for exclusion: Did not meet quality criteria. 12. Saey, D. Feasibility of a short home-based rehabilitation program for cancer patients waiting for lung resection surgery. http://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT01667237 Reason for exclusion: Limited data presented – no response from author. 13. Swank A, Kachelman J, Bibeau W, Quesada P, Nyland J, Malkani A, Topp R. Prehabilitation before total knee arthroplasty increases strength and function in older adults with severe osteoarthritis. J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(2): 318-325. Reason for exclusion: Did not meet quality criteria. 14. Vukomanovic A, Popovic Z, Durovic, Krstic L. The effects of short-term preoperative physical therapy and education on early functional recovery of patients younger than 70 undergoing total hip arthroplasty. Vojnosanitetski Pregled. 2008;65(4):291-297. Reason for exclusion: The methods of allocation and randomization were unclear. 15. Walther C, Fiess A, Moebius-Winkler S, Linke A, Erbs S, Schuler G, Walther T. Preoperative exercise training is associated with less peri- and postoperative adverse events but similar long term outcome in patients with stable coronary artery disease. European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation. 2010; 17: S59-S60. Reason for exclusion: Limited data presented in abstract – no response from author. 16. Wang A, Gilbey H, Ackland T. Perioperative exercise programs improve early return of ambulatory function after total hip arthroplasty: a randomized, controlled trial. Reason for exclusion: Did not meet quality criteria.

Am

J

Phys

Med

Rehabil.

2002;

81(11):

801-806.

Cabilan et al. The effectiveness of prehabilitation or preoperative exercise for surgical patients: a systematic review © the authors 2015 doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1885 Page 187