Prehabilitation for Patients Undergoing Orthopedic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Prehabilitation programs for patients undergoing orthopedic surgery have been gaining popularity in recent years. However, the current literature has produced varying results. Objective: To evaluate whether prehabilitation is associated with improved preoperative and postoperative outcomes compared with usual care for patients undergoing orthopedic surgery. Data Sources: Bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL [Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature], AMED [Allied and Complementary Medicine], Embase, PEDRO [Physiotherapy Evidence Database], and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for published trials, and the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Science, System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe, and European clinical trials registry were searched for unpublished trials from January 1, 2000, to June 30, 2022. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing prehabilitation with standard care for any orthopedic surgical procedure were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers screened trials. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Recommendations were determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system and the study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures: Pain, function, muscle strength, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Results: Forty-eight unique trials involving 3570 unique participants (2196 women [61.5%]; mean [SD] age, 64.1 [9.1] years) were analyzed. Preoperatively, moderate-certainty evidence favoring prehabilitation was reported for patients undergoing total knee replacement (TKR) for function (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.70 [95% CI, -1.08 to -0.32]) and muscle strength and flexion (SMD, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.23-1.77]) and for patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR) for HRQOL on the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (weighted mean difference [WMD], 7.35 [95% CI, 3.15-11.54]) and muscle strength and abduction (SMD, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.03-2.02]). High-certainty evidence was reported for patients undergoing lumbar surgery for back pain (WMD, -8.20 [95% CI, -8.85 to -7.55]) and moderate-certainty evidence for HRQOL (SMD, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.13-0.78]). Postoperatively, moderate-certainty evidence favoring prehabilitation was reported for function at 6 weeks in patients undergoing TKR (SMD, -0.51 [95% CI, -0.85 to -0.17]) and at 6 months in those undergoing lumbar surgery (SMD, -2.35 [95% CI, -3.92 to -0.79]). Other differences in outcomes favoring prehabilitation were of low to very low quality of evidence. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs, moderate-certainty evidence supported prehabilitation over usual care in improving preoperative function and strength in TKR and HRQOL and muscle strength in THR, high-certainty evidence in reducing back pain, and moderate-certainty evidence in improving HRQOL in lumbar surgery. Postoperatively, moderate-certainty evidence supported prehabilitation for function following TKR at 6 weeks and lumbar surgery at 6 months. Prehabilitation showed promising results for other outcomes, although high risk of bias and heterogeneity affected overall quality of evidence. Additional RCTs with a low risk of bias investigating preoperative and postoperative outcomes for all orthopedic surgical procedures are required.

Validating the Cambridge Protocol: Reliability of Hip Muscle Strength Measurements Using a Motorized Dynamometer and Electromyography.

BACKGROUND: Muscle weakness is common after injury in athletes and in the presence of hip pathology. It will cause abnormal hip biomechanics and can predict future injury. However, objective measurement of hip muscle strength is difficult to perform accurately and reliably. Therefore, it is challenging to determine when an athlete has returned to preinjury levels of strength. In addition, there is currently no standardized method of obtaining measurements, which prevents the data being compared or shared between research centers. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to comprehensively assess the inter- and intraobserver reliability of our standardized muscle strength measurement protocol. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive laboratory study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3, inception cohort study. METHODS: A total of 16 healthy male volunteers (age = 28.3 ± 7.9 years) were recruited. Those with a previous history of hip injuries or disorders were excluded. These volunteers underwent strength testing according to the Cambridge Protocol on 4 separate occasions, performed by 2 independent assessors. Maximal voluntary contractions, fatigue torque fluctuations, and electromyography measurements were recorded. Intra- and interobserver reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: Good-to-excellent correlation was seen for both intra- and interobserver reliability across almost all hip movements for maximal contractions: ICC ranged 0.78 to 0.93 and 0.78 to 0.96, respectively. The standard error of the mean for all hip movements was also extremely low at 2% to 3%. CONCLUSION: The Cambridge Protocol is a highly reliable method for objective measurement of hip muscle strength. We recommend future studies use this protocol, or the principles underpinning it, to enable data sharing and comparison across different studies. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This is a description and analysis of hip muscle strength measurement. If widely used, it will allow for accurate and objective strength assessment and closer monitoring of hip injuries and pathology.