[Patient motivation and prehabilitation: assessment often overlooked]. / Motivation du patient et préhabilitation : l'évaluation souvent oubliée.

Prehabilitation, which is still in its infancy, is becoming an essential part of oncology treatment. Motivation assessment is crucial for adherence to these programs, which aim to optimize functional capacity before and during the intensive phases of treatment. To date, healthcare teams have had little experience of assessing motivation, which is a weakness in the care strategy. This is partly due to a lack of standardized models and a delay in caregivers changing their position in response to changes in patient' motivations. In this article, we invite to discuss the 'why' and 'how' of motivational assessment in patients undergoing prehabilitation.

Cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation of elderly frail or pre-frail patients prior to elective surgery (PRAEP-GO) versus usual care - Protocol for a health economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Prehabilitation aims to improve patients' functional capacity before surgery to reduce perioperative complications, promote recovery and decrease probability of disability. The planned economic evaluation is performed alongside a large German multi-centre pragmatic, two-arm parallel-group, randomized controlled trial on prehabilitation for frail elderly patients before elective surgery compared to standard care (PRAEP-GO RCT). The aim is to determine the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of prehabilitation for frail elderly before an elective surgery. METHODS: The planned health economic evaluation comprises cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility analyses. Analyses are conducted in the German context from different perspectives including the payer perspective, i.e. the statutory health insurance, the societal perspective and the health care provider perspective. Data on outcomes and costs, are collected alongside the ongoing PRAEP-GO RCT. The trial population includes frail or pre-frail patients aged ≥70 years with planned elective surgery. The intervention consists of frailty screening (Fried phenotype), a shared decision-making conference determining modality (physiotherapy and unsupervised physical exercises, nutrition counselling, etc.) and setting (inpatient, day care, outpatient etc.) of a 3-week individual multimodal prehabilitation prior to surgery. The control group receives standard preoperative care. Costs include the intervention costs, the costs of the index hospital stay for surgery, and health care resources consumed during a 12-month follow-up. Clinical effectiveness outcomes included in the economic evaluation are the level of care dependency, the degree of disability as measured by the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0), quality-adjusted life years (QALY) derived from the EQ-5D-5L and the German utility set, and complications occurring during the index hospital stay. Each adopted perspective considers different types of costs and outcomes as outlined in the protocol. All analyses will feature Intention-To-Treat analysis. To explore methodological and parametric uncertainties, we will conduct probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. Subgroup analyses will be performed as secondary analyses. DISCUSSION: The health economic evaluation will provide insights into the cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation in older frail populations, informing decision-making processes and contributing to the evidence base in this field. Potential limitation includes a highly heterogeneous trial population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PRAEP-GO RCT: NCT04418271; economic evaluation: OSF ( https://osf.io/ecm74 ).

How much does it cost to be fit for operation? The economics of prehabilitation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Prehabilitation before elective surgery can include physical, nutritional, and psychological interventions or a combination of these to allow patients to return postoperatively to baseline status as soon as possible. The purpose of this review is to analyse the current date related to the cost-effectiveness of such programs. RECENT FINDINGS: The current literature regarding the economics of prehabilitation is limited. However, such programs have been mainly associated with either a reduction in total healthcare related costs or no increase. SUMMARY: Prehabilitation before elective surgery has been shown to minimize the periprocedural complications and optimization of short term follow up after surgical procedures. Recent studies included cost analysis, either based on hospital accounting data or on estimates costs. The healthcare cost was mainly reduced by shortening the number of hospitalization day. Other factors included length of ICU stay, place of the prehabilitation program (in-hospital vs. home-based) and compliance to the program.

Prehabilitation in colorectal cancer surgery improves outcome and reduces hospital costs.

INTRODUCTION: Increasing evidence suggests that multimodal prehabilitation programs reduce postoperative complication rates and length of stay. Nevertheless, prehabilitation is not standard care yet, also as financial consequences of such programs are lacking. Aim of this study was to analyse clinical outcomes and effects on hospital resources if prehabilitation is implemented for patients who are planned for colorectal surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery and who received either prehabilitation or standard care between January 2017 and March 2022 in a regional Dutch hospital were included. Outcome parameters were length of hospital stay, 30-day postoperative complications, 30-day ICU admission, readmission rates and hospital costs. RESULTS: A total of 196 patients completed prehabilitation whereas 390 patients received standard care. Lower overall complication rates (31 % vs 40 %, p = 0.04) and severe complication rates (20 % vs 31 %, p = 0.01) were observed in the prehabilitation group compared to standard care. Length of stay was shorter in the prehabilitation group (mean 5.80 days vs 6.71 days). In hospital cost savings were €1109 per patient, while the calculated investment for prehabilitation was €969. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a multimodal prehabilitation program in colorectal surgery reduces postoperative complication rates, length of stay and hospital costs.

Effects of tele-prehabilitation on clinical and muscular recovery in patients awaiting knee replacement: protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The increasing prevalence of knee osteoarthritis and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) impose a significant socioeconomic burden in developed and developing countries. Prehabilitation (rehabilitation in the weeks immediately before surgery) may be crucial to prepare patients for surgery improving outcomes and reducing assistance costs. Moreover, considering the progress of telemedicine, candidates for TKA could potentially benefit from a tele-prehabilitation programme. We aim to evaluate the effects of a home-based tele-prehabilitation program for patients waiting for total knee replacement. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Forty-eight male patients, aged 65-80, on a waiting list for TKA will be recruited and randomly assigned to the tele-prehabilitation intervention or control groups. Both groups will undergo the same 6-week exercise program (five sessions/week) and the same educational session (one per week). The tele-prehabilitation group will perform asynchronous sessions using a tablet, two accelerometers and a balance board (Khymeia, Padova, Italy), while the control group will use a booklet. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index Questionnaire, at the end of the prehabilitation, will be the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes will include self-reported outcomes, performance tests and change in expressions of blood and muscle biomarkers. Ten healthy subjects, aged 18-30, will be also recruited for muscle and blood samples collection. They will not undergo any intervention and their data will be used as benchmarks for the intervention and control groups' analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This randomised controlled trial will be conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. This study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of Vita-Salute San Raffaele University (Milan, Italy. No. 50/INT/2022). The research results will be published in peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05668312.

Prehabilitation in older patients prior to elective cardiac procedures (PRECOVERY): study protocol of a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated the efficacy of rehabilitation after a cardiovascular procedure. Especially older and multimorbid patients benefit from rehabilitation after a cardiac procedure. Prehabilitation prior to cardiac procedures may also have positive effects on patients' pre- and postoperative outcomes. Results of a current meta-analysis show that prehabilitation prior to cardiac procedures can improve perioperative outcomes and alleviate adverse effects. Germany currently lacks a structured cardiac prehabilitation program for older patients, which is coordinated across healthcare sectors. METHODS: In a randomized, controlled, two-arm parallel group, assessor-blinded multicenter intervention trial (PRECOVERY), we will randomize 422 patients aged 75 years or older scheduled for an elective cardiac procedure (e.g., coronary artery bypass graft surgery or transcatheter aortic valve replacement). In PRECOVERY, patients randomized to the intervention group participate in a 2-week multimodal prehabilitation intervention conducted in selected cardiac-specific rehabilitation facilities. The multimodal prehabilitation includes seven modules: exercise therapy, occupational therapy, cognitive training, psychosocial intervention, disease-specific education, education with relatives, and nutritional intervention. Participants in the control group receive standard medical care. The co-primary outcomes are quality of life (QoL) and mortality after 12 months. QoL will be measured by the EuroQol 5-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L). A health economic evaluation using health insurance data will measure cost-effectiveness. A mixed-methods process evaluation will accompany the randomized, controlled trial to evaluate dose, reach, fidelity and adaptions of the intervention. DISCUSSION: In this study, we investigate whether a tailored prehabilitation program can improve long-term survival, QoL and functional capacity. Additionally, we will analyze whether the intervention is cost-effective. This is the largest cardiac prehabilitation trial targeting the wide implementation of a new form of care for geriatric cardiac patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS; http://www.drks.de ; DRKS00030526). Registered on 30 January 2023.

Old Age and Frailty in Deceased Organ Transplantation and Allocation-A Plea for Geriatric Assessment and Prehabilitation.

Due to demographic ageing and medical progress, the number and proportion of older organ donors and recipients is increasing. At the same time, the medical and ethical significance of ageing and old age for organ transplantation needs clarification. Advanced age is associated with the frailty syndrome that has a negative impact on the success of organ transplantation. However, there is emerging evidence that frailty can be modified by suitable prehabilitation measures. Against this backdrop, we argue that decision making about access to the transplant waiting list and the allocation of donor organs should integrate geriatric expertise in order to assess and manage frailty and impairments in functional capacity. Prehabilitation should be implemented as a new strategy for pre-operative conditioning of older risk patients' functional capacity. From an ethical point of view, advanced chronological age per se should not preclude the indication for organ transplantation and the allocation of donor organs.

Cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation prior to elective surgery: a systematic review of economic evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Prehabilitation aims at enhancing patients' functional capacity and overall health status to enable them to withstand a forthcoming stressor like surgery. Our aim was to synthesise the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation for patients awaiting elective surgery compared with usual preoperative care. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, the CRD database, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO ICTRP and the dissertation databases OADT and DART. Studies comparing prehabilitation for patients with elective surgery to usual preoperative care were included if they reported cost outcomes. All types of economic evaluations (EEs) were included. The primary outcome of the review was cost-effectiveness based on cost-utility analyses (CUAs). The risk of bias of trial-based EEs was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool and the ROBINS-I tool and the credibility of model-based EEs with the ISPOR checklist. Methodological quality of full EEs was assessed using the CHEC checklist. The EEs' results were synthesised narratively using vote counting based on direction of effect. RESULTS: We included 45 unique studies: 25 completed EEs and 20 ongoing studies. Of the completed EEs, 22 were trial-based and three model-based, corresponding to four CUAs, three cost-effectiveness analyses, two cost-benefit analyses, 12 cost-consequence analyses and four cost-minimization analyses. Three of the four trial-based CUAs (75%) found prehabilitation cost-effective, i.e. more effective and/or less costly than usual care. Overall, 16/25 (64.0%) EEs found prehabilitation cost-effective. When excluding studies of insufficient credibility/critical risk of bias, this number reduced to 14/23 (60.9%). In 8/25 (32.0%), cost-effectiveness was unclear, e.g. because prehabilitation was more effective and more costly, and in one EE prehabilitation was not cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: We found some evidence that prehabilitation for patients awaiting elective surgery is cost-effective compared to usual preoperative care. However, we suspect a relevant risk of publication bias, and most EEs were of high risk of bias and/or low methodological quality. Furthermore, there was relevant heterogeneity depending on the population, intervention and methods. Future EEs should be performed over a longer time horizon and apply a more comprehensive perspective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020182813.

Perioperative Assessment/Prehabilitation in Larynx Cancer.

Head and neck cancer (HNC) survivorship is increasing, and with it, a shift in treatment practices has occurred. Radical surgical resections for the treatment of HNC have decreased, and organ preservation treatments have increased. Although effective in treating HNC, chemoradiation therapy toxicities can be detrimental to a patient's overall health, nutrition status, and quality of life (QOL). Considering that dysphagia is typically a driving element of dysfunction, speech-language pathologists are vital to the prehabilitation phase. Prehabilitation programs include a variety of components, with the primary goal being to improve functional and QOL outcomes posttreatment.

Multimodal prehabilitation for major surgery in elderly patients to lower complications: protocol of a randomised, prospective, multicentre, multidisciplinary trial (PREHABIL Trial).

INTRODUCTION: The global volume of surgery is growing and the population ageing, and economic pressure is rising. Major surgery is associated with relevant morbidity and mortality. Postoperative reduction in physiological and functional capacity is especially marked in the elderly, multimorbid patient with low fitness level, sarcopenia and malnutrition. Interventions aiming to optimise the patient prior to surgery (prehabilitation) may reduce postoperative complications and consequently reduce health costs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre, multidisciplinary, prospective, 2-arm parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment. Primary outcome is the Comprehensive Complications Index at 30 days. Within 3 years, we aim to include 2×233 patients with a proven fitness deficit undergoing major surgery to be randomised using a computer-generated random numbers and a minimisation technique. The study intervention consists of a structured, multimodal, multidisciplinary prehabilitation programme over 2-4 weeks addressing deficits in physical fitness and nutrition, diabetes control, correction of anaemia and smoking cessation versus standard of care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The PREHABIL trial has been approved by the responsible ethics committee (Kantonale Ethikkomission Bern, project ID 2020-01690). All participants provide written informed consent prior to participation. Participant recruitment began in February 2022 (10 and 8 patients analysed at time of submission), with anticipated completion in 2025. Publication of the results in peer-reviewed scientific journals are expected in late 2025. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04461301.

Multimodal prehabilitation program valuation for thoracic surgical patients.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Modifiable patient-related risk factors, such as physical, emotional, and cognitive frailty, poor nutritional status, sleep hygiene, anemia, alcohol abuse, and smoking reduce a patient's ability to effectively recover from the insult of surgery. Herein, we review the value of implementing a comprehensive prehabilitation program for patients undergoing thoracic surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: Although prehabilitation is not a novel concept, recent evidence suggest that 4-6 weeks of prehabilitation prior to surgery is likely to increase a patient's preoperative functional status allowing patients to return to independence earlier after surgery. The value of a prehabilitation program can be determined using cost effectiveness analysis, cost-benefit analysis (CBA), cost-utility analysis (CUA), and cost-consequence analysis (CCA). SUMMARY: It stands to reason that well designed prehabilitation programs can add value by improving quality metrics at a lower cost to our healthcare system. Definitive randomized trials are needed to confirm this notion.

Frailty Assessment and Prehabilitation Before Complex Spine Surgery in Patients With Degenerative Spine Disease: A Narrative Review.

Degenerative spine disease increases in prevalence and may become debilitating as people age. Complex spine surgery may offer relief but becomes riskier with age. Efforts to lessen the physiological impact of surgery through minimally invasive techniques and enhanced recovery programs mitigate risk only after the decision for surgery. Frailty assessments outperform traditional tools of perioperative risk stratification. The extent of frailty predicts complications after spine surgery such as reoperation for infection and 30-day mortality, as well as elements of social cost such as hospital length of stay and discharge to an advanced care facility. Symptoms of spine disease overlap with phenotypic markers of frailty; therefore, different frailty assessment tools may perform differently in patients with degenerative spine disease. Beyond frailty, however, cognitive decline and psychosocial isolation may interact with frailty and affect achievable surgical outcomes. Prehabilitation, which has reduced perioperative risk in colorectal and cardiac surgery, may benefit potential complex spine surgery patients. Typical prehabilitation includes physical exercise, nutrition supplementation, and behavioral measures that may offer symptomatic relief even in the absence of surgery. Nonetheless, the data on the efficacy of prehabilitation for spine surgery remains sparse and barriers to prehabilitation are poorly defined. This narrative review concludes that a frailty assessment-potentially supplemented by an assessment of cognition and psychosocial resources-should be part of shared decision-making for patients considering complex spine surgery. Such an assessment may suffice to prompt interventions that form a prehabilitation program. Formal prehabilitation programs will require further study to better define their place in complex spine care.

Actionable Factors Fostering Health Value Generation and Scalability of Prehabilitation: A Prospective Cohort Study.

IMPORTANCE: Prehabilitation has potential for improving surgical outcomes as shown in previous randomized controlled trials. However, a marked efficacy-effectiveness gap is limiting its scalability. Comprehensive analyses of deployment of the intervention in real-life scenarios are required. OBJECTIVE: To assess health outcomes and cost of prehabilitation. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study with a control group built using propensity score-matching techniques. SETTING: Prehabilitation Unit in a tertiary-care university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Candidates for major digestive, cardiac, thoracic, gynecologic, or urologic surgeries. INTERVENTION: Prehabilitation program, including supervised exercise training, promotion of physical activity, nutritional optimization, and psychological support. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The comprehensive complication index, hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, and hospital costs per patient until 30 days after surgery. Patients were classified by the degree of program completion and level of surgical aggression for sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The analysis of the entire study group did not show differences in study outcomes between prehabilitation and control groups (n=328 each). The per-protocol analysis, including only patients completing the program (n=112, 34%), showed a reduction in mean hospital stay [9.9 (7.2) vs 12.8 (12.4) days; P =0.035]. Completers undergoing highly aggressive surgeries (n=60) additionally showed reduction in mean intensive care unit stay [2.3 (2.7) vs 3.8 (4.2) days; P =0.021] and generated mean cost savings per patient of €3092 (32% cost reduction) ( P =0.007). Five priority areas for action to enhance service efficiencies were identified. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The study indicates a low rate of completion of the intervention and identifies priority areas for re-design of service delivery to enhance the effectiveness of prehabilitation.

La rééducation périnéale et pelvienne pour la prévention et le traitement des dysfonctions du plancher pelvien - Volet 1: Incontinence urinaire / Perineal and pelvic rehabilitation for the prevention and treatment of pelvic floor dysfunctions - part 1: urinary incontinence

INTRODUCTION: Les dysfonctions du plancher pelvien entraînent des conséquences importantes sur la qualité de vie d'un point de vue physique, psychologique, sexuel et social. Leur prévalence est souvent sous-estimée en raison de la réticence et de l'embarras à discuter de ces symptômes. Les coûts liés aux dysfonctions du plancher pelvien chez les femmes sont substantiels, et ils représentent un fardeau économique pour la société [Sung et al., 2010]. Des traitements conservateurs comme la rééducation périnéale et pelvienne (REPP) sont habituellement offerts en première intention pour le traitement de ces troubles chez les femmes. Des interventions chirurgicales peuvent être proposées en cas d'échec des traitements conservateurs et pharmacologiques. Le ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux (MSSS) a mandaté l'Institut national d'excellence en santé et en services sociaux (INESSS) afin qu'il évalue la pertinence d'inclure la rééducation périnéale et pelvienne à la gamme de services publics offerts au Québec pour prévenir et traiter les dysfonctions du plancher pelvien. Le mandat vise l'efficacité de cette rééducation, les risques, les modalités d'application ainsi que l'impact économique et organisationnel. Dans un premier volet des travaux, l'INESSS a émis une recommandation favorable à l'égard d'un accès à la rééducation périnéale et pelvienne pour la prévention et le traitement de l'incontinence urinaire, l'une des conséquences fréquentes d'une dysfonction du plancher pelvien. La suite des travaux, présentée dans ce document, porte un regard et formule des recommandations en ce qui a trait à l'accès à cette rééducation pour la prévention et le traitement des dysfonctions anorectales, du prolapsus des organes pelviens et des douleurs périnéales. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Une recherche de la littérature scientifique et des autres sources d'information a été réalisée : revue des revues, revue rapide, revue exploratoire ou recension des guides de pratique clinique selon la question d'évaluation. Une revue de la littérature économique a été menée pour évaluer l'efficience de la rééducation périnéale et pelvienne à l'aide d'études jugées transférables au contexte québécois. Une analyse d'impact budgétaire a permis d'estimer l'impact de l'ajout de la rééducation périnéale et pelvienne à la gamme de services publics offerts au Québec pour le traitement de chacune des dysfonctions du plancher pelvien. Les travaux ont été accompagnés par un comité consultatif d'experts, un comité de patientes collaboratrices et un comité de suivi. Dans un souci de mobilisation et d'intégration des connaissances, une approche multidimensionnelle a été employée en intégrant les données scientifiques, contextuelles et expérientielles. Les énoncés de preuve scientifique formulés ont été soumis à une démarche d'appréciation de la preuve. Les recommandations ont fait l'objet d'une délibération par le Comité délibératif permanent − Modes d'intervention en santé. RÉSULTATS: Femmes en période périnatale Chez une population de femmes enceintes ou en période post-partum, les preuves sont insuffisantes pour conclure quant à l'efficacité de la rééducation périnéale et pelvienne pour la prévention ou le traitement des dysfonctions anorectales, du prolapsus des organes pelviens ou des douleurs périnéales. Il y a également un niveau de preuve insuffisant en ce qui concerne le traitement des dysfonctions anorectales chez les femmes qui présentent des lésions obstétricales du sphincter anal. Certains guides recommandent toutefois la rééducation périnéale et pelvienne après l'échec des traitements initiaux compte tenu du peu d'effets secondaires associés à cette rééducation. Dysfonctions anorectales: La rééducation périnéale et pelvienne pourrait être plus efficace que les soins usuels (sans médication) pour traiter l'incontinence anale chez les femmes adultes. Le niveau de preuve est toutefois jugé faible en raison du petit nombre d'études, qui sont de faible qualité. Les guides de pratique clinique recommandent la rééducation périnéale et pelvienne après l'échec des traitements initiaux. Il ne semble pas y avoir de différence quant à l'efficacité entre la rééducation périnéale et pelvienne et le lopéramide ou des injections anales de dextranomère pour traiter l'incontinence anale chez la femme adulte. Le niveau de preuve est toutefois jugé faible en raison du petit nombre d'études, qui sont de faible qualité. L'absence de preuve ne permet pas de se prononcer sur l'effet de la rééducation périnéale et pelvienne pour le traitement de la constipation fonctionnelle. Un guide recommande cette rééducation pour le traitement de la constipation. Malgré le peu de preuves, les guides de pratique clinique recommandent généralement la rééducation périnéale et pelvienne pour le traitement des dysfonctions anorectales, car elle est considérée comme une option raisonnable en raison de l'a de l'absence d'événements indésirables associés et de son caractère non effractif. Prolapsus des organes pelviens: La rééducation périnéale et pelvienne semble efficace comme traitement de première intention du prolapsus des organes pelviens (stades I à III) pour réduire la sévérité du prolapsus de la paroi vaginale antérieure et les symptômes généraux du prolapsus des organes pelviens à court terme (niveau de preuve modéré). Les guides de pratique clinique recommandent à l'unanimité l'utilisation de la rééducation périnéale et pelvienne pour le traitement des prolapsus des organes pelviens de stades I et II. D'après une littérature limitée et l'opinion des experts consultés, il est estimé que de 4 à 10 séances supervisées durant une période minimale de 16 semaines pourraient être suffisantes pour traiter un prolapsus des organes pelviens chez les femmes adultes. RECOMMANDATIONS: Compte tenu de la cohérence de l'ensemble des données constituant la preuve, de l'efficacité, du caractère sécuritaire de l'intervention ainsi que du peu d'effets indésirables, l'INESSS reconnait la pertinence d'un accès à la rééducation périnéale et pelvienne (c'est-à-dire offre publique et/ou modalités de remboursement) pour le traitement du prolapsus des organes pelviens. L'INESSS recommande : un accès facilité à la rééducation périnéale et pelvienne en traitement du prolapsus des organes pelviens chez la femme adulte, lorsque cliniquement indiqué; un accès à l'intervention durant un maximum de dix séances; que l'intervention puisse s'étendre sur une période de seize semaines ou plus, selon les besoins individuels des patientes, avant de procéder à une réévaluation de la conduite à suivre; que l'intervention soit supervisée par un physiothérapeute qualifié et détenant l'expertise requise; que la rééducation périnéale et pelvienne puisse être accessible plus d'une fois, soit à différentes périodes de la vie d'une femme ou pour traiter différentes conditions. Compte tenu du niveau de preuve jugé faible, l'INESSS n'est pas en mesure de prendre position, pour le moment, à propos de la pertinence d'un accès facilité à la rééducation périnéale et pelvienne pour le traitement des dysfonctions anorectales et des douleurs périnéales chez les femmes adultes. Dans le cas où de nouvelles données deviendraient disponibles, une réévaluation par l'INESSS serait pertinente. De plus, l'INESSS réitère sa recommandation que le Ministère se dote d'une stratégie et d'un plan d'implantation prévoyant: la mise en œuvre progressive des services en fonction des ressources disponibles; l'application de mesures pour favoriser un accès équitable à ces services à toutes les femmes du Québec pour qui la rééducation serait indiquée; le développement d'outils de sensibilisation pour informer les femmes et les professionnels de la santé sur les dysfonctions du plancher pelvien et l'existence de modalités thérapeutiques comme la rééducation périnéale et pelvienne ­ p. ex. feuillet d'information, sites Web, médias, etc.

INTRODUCTION: Pelvic floor dysfunctions significantly impact on physical, psychological, sexual and social quality of life. Their prevalence is often underestimated because of the reluctance and embarrassment to discuss these symptoms. The costs associated with pelvic floor dysfunctions in women are substantial, and they constitute an economic burden for society [Sung et al., 2010]. Conservative treatments, such as perineal and pelvic rehabilitation, including pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) are usually proposed as firstline options to treat these disorders in women, and surgical procedures may be proposed if conservative and pharmacological treatments fail. The Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux (MSSS) asked the Institut national d'excellence en santé et en services sociaux (INESSS) to evaluate the advisability of including perineal and pelvic rehabilitation in the range of public services offered in Québec to prevent and treat pelvic floor dysfunctions. The request specifically concerned the efficacy of perineal and pelvic rehabilitation, the risks, the conditions of use, and the economic and organizational impact. In Part 1 of this project, INESSS issued a favourable recommendation regarding access to perineal and pelvic rehabilitation for the prevention and treatment of urinary incontinence, one of the common sequelae of pelvic floor dysfunction. In the continuation of the project, presented in this report, we examine and make recommendations regarding access to perineal and pelvic rehabilitation for the prevention and treatment of anorectal dysfunctions, pelvic organ prolapse, and perineal pain. METHODOLOGY: A search of the scientific literature and other information sources was conducted: an umbrella review, an exploratory review, or a review of the clinical practice guidelines, depending on the evaluation question. The economic literature was reviewed to assess the cost-effectiveness of perineal and pelvic rehabilitation, using studies deemed transferable to the Québec context. A budget impact analysis was performed to estimate the impact of adding perineal and pelvic rehabilitation to the range of publicly funded services available in Québec for the treatment of each pelvic floor dysfunction. The work was supported by an advisory committee of experts, a committee of patient collaborators, and a follow-up committee. In order to mobilize and integrate the knowledge, a multidimensional approach was used in which scientific, contextual and experiential data were integrated. The statements of scientific evidence that were drawn up were subjected to grading of the quality of evidence. The recommendations were deliberated on by the Comité délibératif permanent − Modes d'intervention en santé. RESULTS: Pregnant or postpartum women: In a population of pregnant or postpartum women, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that perineal and pelvic rehabilitation is effective in preventing or treating anorectal dysfunctions, pelvic organ prolapse or perineal pain. There is also an insufficient level of evidence regarding the treatment of anorectal dysfunctions in women with obstetric anal sphincter injuries. However, some guidelines recommend perineal and pelvic rehabilitation after initial treatments have failed, given the few adverse effects associated with it. Other adult women (including those 55 years of age and older): Anorectal dysfunctions: Perineal and pelvic rehabilitation may be more effective than standard care (without medication) in treating fecal incontinence in adult women. However, the level of evidence is considered low because of the small number of studies, which are of low quality. The clinical practice guidelines recommend perineal and pelvic rehabilitation after initial treatments have failed.. There appears to be no difference in efficacy between perineal and pelvic rehabilitation and loperamide or anal injections of dextranomer for treating fecal incontinence in adult women. However, the level of evidence is considered low because of the small number of studies, which are of low quality. Because of the lack of evidence, we cannot rule on the effect of perineal and pelvic rehabilitation for the treatment of functional constipation. One guideline recommends this intervention for the treatment of constipation. Despite the paucity of evidence, the clinical practice guidelines generally recommend perineal and pelvic rehabilitation for the treatment of anorectal dysfunctions, as it is considered a reasonable option, given that there are no associated adverse effects and that it is noninvasive. Pelvic organ prolapse: Perineal and pelvic rehabilitation appears to be effective as a first-line treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (stages I to III) in reducing the severity of anterior vaginal wall prolapse and the overall symptoms of pelvic organ prolapse in the short term (moderate level of evidence). The clinical practice guidelines unanimously recommend the use of perineal and pelvic rehabilitation for the treatment of stage I and II pelvic organ prolapse. Based on limited literature and the opinion of the experts consulted, it is estimated that 4 to 10 supervised sessions over a period of at least 16 weeks may be sufficient to treat pelvic organ prolapse in adult women. RECOMMENDATIONS: Given the consistency of all the data constituting the evidence, the efficacy and safety of the intervention, and its few adverse effects, INESSS recognizes the advisability of access to perineal and pelvic rehabilitation (i.e., public offer and/or coverage terms) for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. INESSS recommends: Facilitated access to perineal and pelvic rehabilitation for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse in adult women, when clinically indicated; Access to this intervention for a maximum of ten sessions; That it be possible to extend the intervention over a period of 16 or more weeks, depending on the individual patient's needs, before reassessing the course of action; That the intervention be supervised by a qualified physiotherapist with the necessary expertise; That perineal and pelvic rehabilitation be available more than once, i.e., at different times in a woman's life or to treat different conditions. Given what is considered a low level of evidence, INESSS is unable to take a position, at this time, on the advisability of facilitating access to perineal and pelvic rehabilitation for the treatment of anorectal dysfunctions and perineal pain in adult women. Should new data become available, a reevaluation by INESSS would be appropriate. In addition, INESSS reiterates its recommendation that the MSSS develop a strategy and an implementation plan that includes: The gradual implementation of services according to the available resources; The implementation of measures to promote equal access to these services for all Québec women for whom rehabilitation is indicated; The development of knowledge transfer tools for informing women and health professionals about pelvic floor dysfunctions and the existence of treatment modalities, such as perineal and pelvic rehabilitation, e.g., an information sheet, websites, media, etc.; The potential use of additional modalities for providing perineal and pelvic rehabilitation to certain patient populations, such as group sessions or telerehabilitation. These modalities: Should involve supervision by a qualified physiotherapist; Should be used with caution, as their efficacy has not been systematically evaluated in this project; Should be the focus of research projects in the Québec context and be adjusted as new data become available. Exploring measures to promote broader access by involving the participation of various professionals (physiotherapists, midwives, nurses, physicians and physiotherapy technicians) in this offer of services; The implementation of measures to support the training of the professionals involved in the offer of services; Adjusting the offer of services according to the demand over time, based on new developments or research in this field.