Enrico Maria Minnella1,2, Francesco Carli3, Wassim Kassouf4. 1. Department of Anesthesia, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada. enrico.minnella@gmail.com. 2. Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Italy. enrico.minnella@gmail.com. 3. Department of Anesthesia, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada. 4. Department of Urology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Functional status and physical independence play a key role in terms of quality of life, access to treatment, and continuity of care. Surgery, a central component of cancer treatments, leads to detrimental effects on functional capacity, which can be peculiarly relevant in vulnerable patients undergoing major procedures. Prehabilitation is a multidisciplinary intervention that uses the preoperative period to prevent or attenuate treatment-related functional decline and its subsequent consequences. This paper narratively reviews the rationale and the evidence of prehabilitation for uro-oncologic surgery. METHODS: A narrative review was conducted in August 2020, aiming to: (1) identify and discuss the impact of modifiable determinants of postoperative outcomes in urology and (2) review randomized controlled trials (RCT) exploring the role of preoperative exercise, nutrition, and psychological interventions in uro-oncologic surgery. RESULTS: Eight RCTs on preoperative conditioning interventions met the inclusion criteria, focusing on radical cystectomy for bladder cancer (RC) and radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer (RP). There is strong evidence that poor physical, nutritional and psychosocial status negatively impacts on surgical outcomes. Single modality interventions, such as preoperative exercise or nutrition alone, had no effect on 'traditional' surgical outcomes as length of stay or complication. However, multimodal approaches targeting postoperative functional status have shown to be effective and safe. CONCLUSION: There is initial evidence on the effectiveness and safety of multimodal prehabilitation in preserving functional capacity following RC and RP. However, to date, outcomes such as complications and length of stay seem to be not affected by prehabilitation.
PURPOSE: Functional status and physical independence play a key role in terms of quality of life, access to treatment, and continuity of care. Surgery, a central component of cancer treatments, leads to detrimental effects on functional capacity, which can be peculiarly relevant in vulnerable patients undergoing major procedures. Prehabilitation is a multidisciplinary intervention that uses the preoperative period to prevent or attenuate treatment-related functional decline and its subsequent consequences. This paper narratively reviews the rationale and the evidence of prehabilitation for uro-oncologic surgery. METHODS: A narrative review was conducted in August 2020, aiming to: (1) identify and discuss the impact of modifiable determinants of postoperative outcomes in urology and (2) review randomized controlled trials (RCT) exploring the role of preoperative exercise, nutrition, and psychological interventions in uro-oncologic surgery. RESULTS: Eight RCTs on preoperative conditioning interventions met the inclusion criteria, focusing on radical cystectomy for bladder cancer (RC) and radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer (RP). There is strong evidence that poor physical, nutritional and psychosocial status negatively impacts on surgical outcomes. Single modality interventions, such as preoperative exercise or nutrition alone, had no effect on 'traditional' surgical outcomes as length of stay or complication. However, multimodal approaches targeting postoperative functional status have shown to be effective and safe. CONCLUSION: There is initial evidence on the effectiveness and safety of multimodal prehabilitation in preserving functional capacity following RC and RP. However, to date, outcomes such as complications and length of stay seem to be not affected by prehabilitation.
Authors: Inge Geraerts; Hendrik Van Poppel; Nele Devoogdt; Annouschka Laenen; An De Groef; Marijke Van Kampen Journal: BJU Int Date: 2014-01-15 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Giorgio Gandaglia; Briony Varda; Akshay Sood; Daniel Pucheril; Ramdev Konijeti; Jesse D Sammon; Shyam Sukumar; Mani Menon; Maxine Sun; Steven L Chang; Francesco Montorsi; Adam S Kibel; Quoc-Dien Trinh Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 1.862
Authors: Shukri F Khuri; William G Henderson; Ralph G DePalma; Cecilia Mosca; Nancy A Healey; Dharam J Kumbhani Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Martin G Sanda; Rodney L Dunn; Jeff Michalski; Howard M Sandler; Laurel Northouse; Larry Hembroff; Xihong Lin; Thomas K Greenfield; Mark S Litwin; Christopher S Saigal; Arul Mahadevan; Eric Klein; Adam Kibel; Louis L Pisters; Deborah Kuban; Irving Kaplan; David Wood; Jay Ciezki; Nikhil Shah; John T Wei Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-03-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Simone Albisinni; Marco Moschini; Ettore Di Trapani; Francesco Soria; Andrea Mari; Atiqullah Aziz; Jeremy Teoh; Ekaterina Laukhtina; Keiichiro Mori; David D'Andrea; Diego M Carrion; Wojciech Krajewski; Mohammad Abufaraj; Alessia Cimadamore; Wei Shen Tan; Ronan Flippot; Jonathan Khalifa; Kimberly Gonsette; Benjamin Pradere Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 4.226