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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Preoperative nutrition care in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery programs: are we missing an opportunity?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: A key component of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is the integration of nutrition care elements into the surgical pathway, recognizing that preoperative nutrition status affects outcomes of surgery and must be optimized for recovery. We reviewed the preoperative nutrition care recommendations included in ERAS Society guidelines for adults undergoing major surgery and their implementation. RECENT FINDINGS: All ERAS Society guidelines reviewed recommend preoperative patient education to describe the procedures and expectations of surgery; however, only one guideline specifies inclusion of routine nutrition education before surgery. All guidelines included a recommendation for at least one of the following nutrition care elements: nutrition risk screening, nutrition assessment, and nutrition intervention. However, the impact of preoperative nutrition care could not be evaluated because it was rarely reported in recent literature for most surgical disciplines. A small number of studies reported on the preoperative nutrition care elements within their ERAS programs and found a positive impact of ERAS implementation on nutrition care practices, including increased rates of nutrition risk screening. SUMMARY: There is an opportunity to improve the reporting of preoperative nutrition care elements within ERAS programs, which will enhance our understanding of how nutrition care elements influence patient outcomes and experiences.

Feasibility of a multimodal exercise, nutrition, and palliative care intervention in advanced lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Advanced lung cancer patients face significant physical and psychological burden leading to reduced physical function and quality of life. Separately, physical activity, nutrition, and palliative symptom management interventions have been shown to improve functioning in this population, however no study has combined all three in a multimodal intervention. Therefore, we assessed the feasibility of a multimodal physical activity, nutrition, and palliative symptom management intervention in advanced lung cancer. METHODS: Participants received an individually tailored 12-week intervention featuring in-person group-based exercise classes, at-home physical activity prescription, behaviour change education, and nutrition and palliative care consultations. Patients reported symptom burden, energy, and fatigue before and after each class. At baseline and post-intervention, symptom burden, quality of life, fatigue, physical activity, dietary intake, and physical function were assessed. Post-intervention interviews examined participant perspectives. RESULTS: The multimodal program was feasible, with 44% (10/23) recruitment, 75% (75/100) class attendance, 89% (8/9) nutrition and palliative consult attendance, and 85% (17/20) assessment completion. Of ten participants, 70% (7/10) completed the post-intervention follow-up. Participants perceived the intervention as feasible and valuable. Physical activity, symptom burden, and quality of life were maintained, while tiredness decreased significantly. Exercise classes prompted acute clinically meaningful reductions in fatigue, tiredness, depression, pain, and increases in energy and well-being. CONCLUSION: A multimodal physical activity, nutrition, and palliative symptom management intervention is feasible and shows potential benefits on quality of life that warrant further investigation in a larger cohort trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04575831 , Registered 05 October 2020 - Retrospectively registered.

Third-Variable Effects: Tools to Understand Who, When, Why, and How Patients Benefit From Surgical Prehabilitation.

Prehabilitation is a new field of research that aims to optimize modifiable surgical risk factors before surgery to improve patient-oriented outcomes preoperatively and postoperatively. As with any new intervention, the pressing questions that arise include what interventions work, for whom they work, and when do they work best? Given that prehabilitation can be resource intensive, and that preoperative patient characteristics are likely to produce variation in response to treatment, establishing answers to these questions is critical for successful implementation of prehabilitation in clinical practice. The objective of this review article is to describe the illuminating potential of including "third-variable effects" into the integration of research design; by planning for and including measurements of mediators, moderators, and confounders in the design and analysis of prehabilitation research, we can begin to answer practical, clinically relevant questions.

Functional capacity of prediabetic patients: effect of multimodal prehabilitation in patients undergoing colorectal cancer resection.

BACKGROUND: Prehabilitation is the process of increasing functional capacity (FC) before surgery. Poor glycemic control is associated with worse outcomes in patients undergoing surgery. Therefore, prediabetic patients could particularly benefit from prehabilitation. METHODS: This is a pooled analysis of individual patient data from three multimodal prehabilitation trials in colorectal cancer surgery. Following a baseline assessment using the 6-minute walking test (6MWT), subjects were randomized to multimodal prehabilitation or to a control group. Participants were reassessed 24 h before surgery and 4 weeks after surgery. Prediabetes (PreDM) was defined as HbA1c 5.7%-6.4%. Multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for potentially confounding variables. RESULTS: Participation in a prehabilitation program was the most important predictive factor of clinical improvement in FC prior to surgery (Adjusted OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.18, 4.94); prediabetes was not a statistically significant predictor of improvement in FC after adjustments for covariates. Prehabilitation attenuated the loss of FC in unadjusted analyses after surgery in prediabetic patients (PreDM Control: median change -6 m [IQR -50-20] vs PreDM Prehab: median change +25 m [IQR -20-53], p = 0.045). Adjusted analyses also suggested the protective effect against loss of FC after surgery was stronger in prediabetic patients (PreDM Prehab vs PreDM Control: OR 5.5, 95% CI: 1.2-25.8; Normo Prehab vs Normo Control: OR 1.5, 95% CI: 0.53-4.52). CONCLUSIONS: Multimodal prehabilitation favored clinical recovery of FC after surgery in CRC patients, especially prediabetic patients.

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.

Prehabilitation: metabolic considerations.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The major components of ERAS attenuate the inflammatory response and modulate metabolism in direction of sparing body protein and preserving function. However, these perioperative interventions might have limited effectiveness on postoperative outcomes if preoperative risk factors are not addressed and optimized. RECENT FINDINGS: The preoperative metabolic perturbations characterized by insulin resistance and sarcopenia might predispose patients to a higher degree of postoperative catabolism. High-risk populations for such metabolic disturbances include elderly and frail patients, and patients with metabolic syndrome. Research on the effect of prehabilitation on perioperative metabolism is limited, but recent findings suggest that interventions designed to improve insulin sensitivity prior to surgery might represent a promising therapeutic target to minimize surgical complications. SUMMARY: The present paper will discuss the metabolic implications of modulating preoperative risk factors with elements of multimodal prehabilitation, such as exercise training and nutrition.

Effects of Nutritional Prehabilitation, With and Without Exercise, on Outcomes of Patients Who Undergo Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Although there have been meta-analyses of the effects of exercise-only prehabilitation on patients undergoing colorectal surgery, little is known about the effects of nutrition-only (oral nutritional supplements with and without counseling) and multimodal (oral nutritional supplements with and without counseling and with exercise) prehabilitation on clinical outcomes and patient function after surgery. We performed a systemic review and meta-analysis to determine the individual and combined effects of nutrition-only and multimodal prehabilitation compared with no prehabilitation (control) on outcomes of patients undergoing colorectal resection. METHODS: We searched Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and ProQuest for cohort and randomized controlled studies of adults awaiting colorectal surgery who received at least 7 days of nutrition prehabilitation with or without exercise. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis to estimate the pooled risk ratio for categorical data and the weighted mean difference for continuous variables. The primary outcome was length of hospital stay; the secondary outcome was recovery of functional capacity based on results of a 6-minute walk test. RESULTS: We identified 9 studies (5 randomized controlled studies and 4 cohort studies) composed of 914 patients undergoing colorectal surgery (438 received prehabilitation and 476 served as controls). Receipt of any prehabilitation significantly decreased days spent in the hospital compared with controls (weighted mean difference of length of hospital stay = -2.2 days; 95% confidence interval = -3.5 to -0.9). Only 3 studies reported on functional outcomes but could not be pooled owing to methodologic heterogeneity. In the individual studies, multimodal prehabilitation significantly improved results of the 6-minute walk test at 4 and 8 weeks after surgery compared with standard Enhanced Recovery Pathway care and at 8 weeks compared with standard Enhanced Recovery Pathway care with added rehabilitation. The 4 observational studies had a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that nutritional prehabilitation alone or combined with an exercise program significantly decreased length of hospital stay by 2 days in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. There is some evidence that multimodal prehabilitation accelerated the return to presurgical functional capacity.

The impact of improved functional capacity before surgery on postoperative complications: a study in colorectal cancer.

Background: Poor functional capacity (FC) is an independent predictor of postoperative morbidity. However, there is still a lack of evidence as to whether enhancing FC before surgery has a protective effect on postoperative complications. The purpose of this study was to determine whether an improvement in preoperative FC impacted positively on surgical morbidity. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of a cohort of patients who underwent colorectal resection for cancer under Enhanced Recovery After Surgery care. FC was assessed with the 6-min walk test, which measures the distance walked in 6 min (6MWD), at 4 weeks before surgery and again the day before. The study population was classified into two groups depending on whether participants achieved a significant improvement in FC preoperatively (defined as a preoperative 6MWD change ≥19 meters) or not (6MWD change <19 meters). The primary outcome measure was 30-d postoperative complications, assessed with the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI). The association between improved preoperative FC and severe postoperative complication was evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. Results: A total of 179 eligible adults were studied: 80 (44.7%) improved in 6MWD by ≥19 m preoperatively, and 99 (55.3%) did not. Subjects whose FC increased had lower CCI (0 [0-8.7] versus 8.7 [0-22.6], p = .022). Furthermore, they were less likely to have a severe complication (adjusted OR 0.28 (95% CI 0.11-0.74), p = .010), and to have an ED visit. Conclusion: Improved preoperative FC was independently associated with a lower risk of severe postoperative complications. Further investigation is required to establish a causative relationship conclusively.

Guidelines for perioperative care in gynecologic/oncology: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society recommendations-2019 update.

BACKGROUND: This is the first updated Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society guideline presenting a consensus for optimal perioperative care in gynecologic/oncology surgery. METHODS: A database search of publications using Embase and PubMed was performed. Studies on each item within the ERAS gynecologic/oncology protocol were selected with emphasis on meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and large prospective cohort studies. These studies were then reviewed and graded according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. RESULTS: All recommendations on ERAS protocol items are based on best available evidence. The level of evidence for each item is presented accordingly. CONCLUSIONS: The updated evidence base and recommendation for items within the ERAS gynecologic/oncology perioperative care pathway are presented by the ERAS® Society in this consensus review.

Postoperative insulin secretion is decreased in patients with preoperative insulin resistance.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative hyperglycemia is associated with increased rate of surgical site infection, renal failure, and cardiovascular events. The study of insulin sensitivity state before surgery could help in treating postoperative hyperglycemia and preventing iatrogenic hypoglycemia. We studied the postoperative insulin secretion in patients who have a low insulin sensitivity (IR) before surgery compared to patients with normal preoperative insulin sensitivity (IS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-two consecutive patients, undergoing abdominal surgery, underwent preoperative sequential hyperglycemic-euglycemic clamp (SHEC) in order to measure insulin secretion and to screen patients with low insulin sensitivity (IR) or with normal insulin sensitivity (IS). Patients had been randomized to receive either general anesthesia with epidural or PCA. RESULTS: Postoperative insulin secretion in IR patients is decreased compared to IS (P = 0.059) and to IR before surgery regardless to the type of analgesia (P < 0.001). In the IS group, postoperative insulin secretion depends on type of analgesia. It is increased when using PCA and decreased when using epidural (P < 0.05). Blood glucose increased after surgery in both IS an IR (P < 0.001). Patients with preoperative insulin resistance had a higher glycemia before and after surgery (P < 0.001). Blood glucose levels were comparable between PCA and epidural patients (P = 0.450). CONCLUSION: Insulin secretion is reduced in IR regardless the type of anesthesia. PCA increases insulin secretion, whereas epidural decreases it in patients with normal insulin sensitivity. These findings implicate that after surgery insulin administration is advisable in patients with preoperative insulin resistance while it should be given cautiously in those with normal preoperative insulin sensitivity.

Promoting a culture of prehabilitation for the surgical cancer patient.

BACKGROUND: Traditional rehabilitative approaches to perioperative cancer care have focused on the postoperative period to facilitate the return to presurgical baseline conditions. However, there is some realization that the preoperative period can be a very effective time for intervention as the patients are more amenable to target their physiological condition to prepare to overcome the metabolic cost of the surgical stress. METHODS: We undertook a narrative review of the current literature on surgical prehabilitation and discussed the current evidence of preoperative interventions before cancer surgery in order to increase physiological reserve before surgery and accelerate postoperative recovery. RESULTS: Published data indicate the positive impact of prehabilitation on postoperative functional capacity and return to daily activities. However, the current evidence on the impact on short- and long-term clinical outcome is limited, and more research needs to be conducted. CONCLUSION: Preliminary findings indicate that a group of interventions such as exercise, nutrition and anxiety reduction in the preoperative period can complement the enhanced recovery program and facilitate the return to baseline activities of daily living. It is not clear at this stage whether the preoperative increase in functional capacity mitigates the burden of postoperative morbidities and subsequent cancer therapies. Therefore, more research is warranted.