Sjaak Pouwels1, David Hageman2, Lindy N M Gommans2, Edith M Willigendael3, Simon W Nienhuijs4, Marc R Scheltinga5, Joep A W Teijink2. 1. Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands; Department of Epidemiology, CAPHRI Research School, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands. Electronic address: joep.teijink@catharinaziekenhuis.nl. 2. Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands; Department of Epidemiology, CAPHRI Research School, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Surgery, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands. 5. CARIM Research School, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands; Department of Vascular Surgery, Maxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, the Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Several systematic reviews have focused on the role of preoperative exercise therapy (PET) in various fields of surgical care. Aims of the present scoping review are to summarize research findings and to identify gaps in existing literature. METHODS: Two authors independently conducted a comprehensive literature search on systematic reviews regarding PET. The risk of bias was assessed using "the methodology checklist for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN)." Findings of the included systematic reviews were summarized according to type of surgery and type of PET. RESULTS: Twenty-one reviews on PET with a low risk of bias were included. Seven reviews investigated PET in multiple surgical fields and 14 in just a single surgical field. PET was studied before cardiac surgery (n = 9), orthopedic surgery (n = 8), abdominal surgery (n = 8), thoracic surgery (n = 8), vascular surgery (n = 3), and urologic surgery (n = 1). CONCLUSION: Overall, it seems that PET exerts beneficial effects on physical fitness and postoperative outcome measures. Gaps in current literature are the heterogeneity in selected patient populations and outcome measures as well as lack of guidelines on the specific PET regimes. Therefore, there is increasing need for multicenter randomized trials with specifically designed PET programs and a carefully selected patient population to strengthen current evidence.
OBJECTIVES: Several systematic reviews have focused on the role of preoperative exercise therapy (PET) in various fields of surgical care. Aims of the present scoping review are to summarize research findings and to identify gaps in existing literature. METHODS: Two authors independently conducted a comprehensive literature search on systematic reviews regarding PET. The risk of bias was assessed using "the methodology checklist for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN)." Findings of the included systematic reviews were summarized according to type of surgery and type of PET. RESULTS: Twenty-one reviews on PET with a low risk of bias were included. Seven reviews investigated PET in multiple surgical fields and 14 in just a single surgical field. PET was studied before cardiac surgery (n = 9), orthopedic surgery (n = 8), abdominal surgery (n = 8), thoracic surgery (n = 8), vascular surgery (n = 3), and urologic surgery (n = 1). CONCLUSION: Overall, it seems that PET exerts beneficial effects on physical fitness and postoperative outcome measures. Gaps in current literature are the heterogeneity in selected patient populations and outcome measures as well as lack of guidelines on the specific PET regimes. Therefore, there is increasing need for multicenter randomized trials with specifically designed PET programs and a carefully selected patient population to strengthen current evidence.
Authors: Joseph C Carmichael; Deborah S Keller; Gabriele Baldini; Liliana Bordeianou; Eric Weiss; Lawrence Lee; Marylise Boutros; James McClane; Scott R Steele; Liane S Feldman Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: D Pfirrmann; P Simon; M Mehdorn; M Hänsig; S Stehr; L Selig; A Weimann; M Knödler; F Lordick; A Mehnert; I Gockel Journal: Chirurg Date: 2018-11 Impact factor: 0.955
Authors: Sjaak Pouwels; Besir Topal; Joost F Ter Woorst; Marc P Buise; Ghada M Shahin; Martijn A Spruit; Frank W J M Smeenk Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-08-05 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Vanessa Ferreira; Ramanakumar V Agnihotram; Andreas Bergdahl; Stefanus J van Rooijen; Rashami Awasthi; Francesco Carli; Celena Scheede-Bergdahl Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-02-24 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Matthew Weston; Alan M Batterham; Garry A Tew; Elke Kothmann; Karen Kerr; Shah Nawaz; David Yates; Gerard Danjoux Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2017-01-09 Impact factor: 4.566
Authors: Annefleur E M Berkel; Bart C Bongers; Marie-Janne S van Kamp; Hayke Kotte; Paul Weltevreden; Frans H C de Jongh; Michiel M M Eijsvogel; A N Machteld Wymenga; Marloes Bigirwamungu-Bargeman; Job van der Palen; Marc J van Det; Nico L U van Meeteren; Joost M Klaase Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2018-02-21 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Laura Verbree-Willemsen; Remco B Grobben; Judith Ar van Waes; Linda M Peelen; Hendrik M Nathoe; Wilton A van Klei; Diederick E Grobbee Journal: Eur J Prev Cardiol Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 7.804
Authors: Aleksandra Szylińska; Mariusz Listewnik; Iwona Rotter; Aleksandra Rył; Katarzyna Kotfis; Krzysztof Mokrzycki; Ewelina Kuligowska; Paweł Walerowicz; Mirosław Brykczyński Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-11-17 Impact factor: 3.390