Prophylactic mesh to prevent incisional hernia in laparotomy for ovarian tumors.

OBJECTIVE: Incisional hernias are a common complication of midline laparotomies. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of prophylactic mesh placement after midline laparotomy for ovarian tumors on the incidence of incisional hernia. METHODS: We collected retrospective data from patients undergoing midline laparotomy for borderline or ovarian cancer with at least 12 months of follow-up, including those with and without mesh. Patient demographics, preoperative characteristics and risk factors for hernia were reported and grouped according to prophylactic mesh placement. A multivariate analysis was conducted to identify independent risk factors for incisional hernia. Kaplan-Meier curves illustrating the cumulative incidence of incisional hernia based on mesh placement were performed. RESULTS: A total of 139 consecutive patients with available data were included, 58 in the non-mesh group and 81 in the mesh group, with high body mass index (BMI) as the most common reason for mesh placement. The mean (SD)) age was 60 years (13.97). A total of 11 patients (7.9%) had borderline tumors while 128 (92.1%) had invasive cancer. After clinical and radiological examination, 18.7% (26/139) of patients developed incisional hernia at a median follow-up of 35.8 months (IQR) 43.8): 31% (18/58) were detected in the non-mesh group, and 9.9% (8/81) in the mesh group (p<0.002). Multivariate analysis showed no-mesh placement (OR) 10; 95% CI) 2.8 to 35.919; p<0.001) as a significant risk factor for incisional hernia. Age ≥70 (OR 4.3; 95% CI 1.24 to 15; p=0.02) and BMI ≥29 (OR 4.4; 95% CI 1.27 to 14.93; p=0.019) were also identified as independent risk factors for hernia development. According to Kaplan-Meier curves, the cumulative incidence of incisional hernia was higher in the non-mesh group (p=0.002). CONCLUSION: The incidence of incisional hernia was high in patients undergoing midline laparotomy for ovarian tumors. The addition of a prophylactic mesh may reduce this incidence, therefore there is a need to consider it as an option for high-risk patients, particularly those aged over 70 years or with a BMI ≥29 kg/m2.

Protein Supplementation in a Prehabilitation Program in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Endometrial Cancer.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and prehabilitation programs are multidisciplinary care pathways to reduce stress response and improve perioperative outcomes, which also include nutritional interventions. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of protein supplementation with 20 mg per day before surgery in a prehabilitation program in postoperative serum albumin, prealbumin, and total proteins in endometrial cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: A prospective study including patients who underwent laparoscopy for endometrial cancer was conducted. Three groups were identified according to ERAS and prehabilitation implementation (preERAS, ERAS, and Prehab). The primary outcome was levels of serum albumin, prealbumin, and total protein 24-48 h after surgery. RESULTS: A total of 185 patients were included: 57 in the preERAS group, 60 in the ERAS group, and 68 in the Prehab group. There were no basal differences in serum albumin, prealbumin, or total protein between the three groups. After surgery, regardless of the nutritional intervention, the decrease in the values was also similar. Moreover, values in the Prehab group just before surgery were lower than the initial ones, despite the protein supplementation. CONCLUSIONS: Supplementation with 20 mg of protein per day does not impact serum protein levels in a prehabilitation program. Supplementations with higher quantities should be studied.

Prehabilitation in an ERAS program for endometrial cancer patients: impact on post-operative recovery.

OBJECTIVES: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and prehabilitation programs are multidisciplinary care pathways that aim to reduce stress response and improve perioperative outcomes. However, literature is limited regarding the impact of ERAS and prehabilitation in gynecologic oncology surgery. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of implementing an ERAS and prehabilitation program on post-operative outcomes of endometrial cancer patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: We evaluated consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopy for endometrial cancer that followed ERAS and the prehabilitation program at a single center. A pre-intervention cohort that followed the ERAS program alone was identified. The primary outcome was length of stay, and secondary outcomes were normal oral diet restart, post-operative complications and readmissions. RESULTS: A total of 128 patients were included: 60 patients in the ERAS group and 68 patients in the prehabilitation group. The prehabilitation group had a shorter length of hospital stay of 1 day (p<0.001) and earlier normal oral diet restart of 3.6 hours (p=0.005) in comparison with the ERAS group. The rate of post-operative complications (5% in the ERAS group and 7.4% in the prehabilitation group, p=0.58) and readmissions (1.7% in the ERAS group and 2.9% in the prehabilitation group, p=0.63) were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The integration of ERAS and a prehabilitation program in endometrial cancer patients undergoing laparoscopy significantly reduced hospital stay and time to first oral diet as compared with ERAS alone, without increasing overall complications or the readmissions rate.

Impact of prehabilitation during neoadjuvant chemotherapy and interval cytoreductive surgery on ovarian cancer patients: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive surgery followed by systemic chemotherapy is the standard of treatment in advanced ovarian cancer where feasible. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by surgery is applicable where upfront cytoreductive surgery is not feasible because of few certain reasons. Nevertheless, surgical interventions and the chemotherapy itself may be associated with postoperative complications usually entailing slow postoperative recovery. Prehabilitation programs consist of the patient's preparation before surgery to improve the patient's functional capacity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of a prehabilitation program during neoadjuvant treatment and interval cytoreductive surgery for ovarian cancer patients. METHODS: A retrospective observational pilot study of patients with advanced ovarian cancer treated with NACT and interval cytoreductive surgery was conducted. The prehabilitation group received a structured intervention based on physical exercise, nutritional counseling, and psychological support. Nutritional parameters were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively, and functional parameters and perioperative and postoperative complications were also recorded. RESULTS: A total of 29 patients were included in the study: 14 in the prehabilitation group and 15 in the control group. The patients in the prehabilitation program showed higher mean total protein levels in both preoperative (7.4 vs. 6.8, p = 0.004) and postoperative (4.9 vs. 4.3, p = 0.005) assessments. Up to 40% of controls showed intraoperative complications vs. 14.3% of patients in the prehabilitation group, and the requirement of intraoperative blood transfusion was significantly lower in the prehabilitation group (14.3% vs. 53.3%, p = 0.027). The day of the first ambulation, rate of postoperative complications, and length of hospital stay were similar between the groups. Finally, trends towards shorter time between diagnosis and interval cytoreductive surgery (p = 0.097) and earlier postoperative diet restart (p = 0.169) were observed in the prehabilitation group. CONCLUSION: Prehabilitation during NACT in women with ovarian cancer candidates to interval cytoreductive surgery may improve nutritional parameters and thereby increase postoperative recovery. Nevertheless, the results of this pilot study are preliminary, and further studies are needed to determine the clinical impact of prehabilitation programs.