Prehabilitation Before Major Abdominal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis
Open accessAbstract
Introduction: Prehabilitation prior to major surgery has increased in popularity over recent years and aims to improve pre‐operative conditioning of patients to improve post‐operative outcomes. The beneficial effect of such protocols is not well established with conflicting results reported. This review aimed to assess the effect of prehabilitation on post‐operative outcome after major abdominal surgery. Methods: EMBASE, Medline, PubMed and the Cochrane database were searched in August 2018 for trials comparing outcomes of patients undergoing prehabilitation involving prescribed respiratory and exercise interventions prior to abdominal surgery. Study characteristics, overall and pulmonary morbidity, length of stay (LOS), maximum inspiratory pressure and change in six‐minute walking test (6MWT) distance were obtained. The primary outcome was post‐operative overall morbidity within 30 days. Dichotomous data were analysed by fixed or random effects odds ratio. Continuous data were analysed with weighted mean difference. Results: Fifteen RCTs were included in the analysis with 457 prehabilitation patients and 450 control group patients. A significant reduction in overall (OR 0.63 95% CI 0.46–0.87 I 2 34%, p = 0.005) and pulmonary morbidity (OR 0.4 95% CI 0.23–0.68, I 2 = 0%, p = 0.0007) was observed in the prehabilitation group. No significant difference in LOS (WMD −2.39 95% CI −4.86 to 0.08 I 2 = 0%, p = 0.06) or change in 6MWT distance (WMD 9.06 95% CI −35.68, 53.81 I 2 = 88%, p = 0.69) was observed. Conclusions: Prehabilitation can reduce overall and pulmonary morbidity following surgery and could be utilised routinely. The precise protocol of prehabilitation has not been completely established. Further work is required to tailor optimal prehabilitation protocols for specific operative procedures.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 36 · Cited by 393
- Authors
- Hughes, M. J., Hackney, R. J., Lamb, P. J., Wigmore, S. J., Christopher Deans, D. A., & Skipworth, R. J. E.
- Affiliations
- Edinburgh Royal Infirmary (GB)
- Department of General Surgery Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh 51 Little France Crescent EH16 4SA Edinburgh UK
- Corresponding author
- Hughes, Michael J.
- Venue
- World Journal of Surgery
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-02-20
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1661-1668
- ISSN
- 0364-2313 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-2323
- OpenAlex
- W2917325990
- Cited by
- 393
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 35 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 60 · 2022: 80 · 2021: 67 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 10
- FWCI
- 10.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Locations
- World Journal of Surgery (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Enhanced Recovery After Surgery
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
- Keywords
- prehabilitation, major abdominal surgery, postoperative morbidity, pulmonary morbidity, preoperative conditioning, length of hospital stay, 6-minute walk test, maximal inspiratory pressure, postoperative outcomes
- MeSH terms
- Abdomen, Walk Test, Humans, Length of Stay, Postoperative Complications, Postoperative Period, Preoperative Care, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Physical Conditioning, Human
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review