A toolbox for a structured risk-based prehabilitation program in major surgical oncology

Prehabilitation is a multimodal concept to improve functional capability prior to surgery, so that the patients’ resilience is strengthened to withstand any peri- and postoperative comorbidity. It covers physical activities, nutrition, and psychosocial wellbeing. The literature is heterogeneous in outcomes and definitions. In this scoping review, class 1 and 2 evidence was included to identify seven main aspects of prehabilitation for the treatment pathway: (i) risk assessment, (ii) FITT (frequency, interventions, time, type of exercise) principles of prehabilitation exercise, (iii) outcome measures, (iv) nutrition, (v) patient blood management, (vi) mental wellbeing, and (vii) economic potential. Recommendations include the risk of tumor progression due to delay of surgery. Patients undergoing prehabilitation should perceive risk assessment by structured, quantifiable, and validated tools like Risk Analysis Index, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), American Society of Anesthesiology Score, or Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group scoring. Assessments should be repeated to quantify its effects. The most common types of exercise include breathing exercises and moderate- to high-intensity interval protocols. The program should have a duration of 3–6 weeks with 3–4 exercises per week that take 30–60 min. The 6-Minute Walking Testing is a valid and resource-saving tool to assess changes in aerobic capacity. Long-term assessment should include standardized outcome measurements (overall survival, 90-day survival, Dindo–Clavien/CCI®) to monitor the potential of up to 50% less morbidity. Finally, individual cost-revenue assessment can help assess health economics, confirming the hypothetic saving of $8 for treatment for$1 spent for prehabilitation. These recommendations should serve as a toolbox to generate hypotheses, discussion, and systematic approaches to develop clinical prehabilitation standards

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Familiärer Darmkrebs – entscheidende Faktoren und empfohlene Vorsorge

Die Betrachtung und Analyse des menschlichen Erbgutes (DNS) ist aus der aktuellen medizinischen Forschung nicht mehr wegzudenken. Durch die moderne Genetik hat sich die Sichtweise auf viele Erkrankungen grundsätzlich verändert. In Zukunft werden Therapien möglich sein, die direkt an "schadhaften Stellen" in der DNS ansetzen und diese "reparieren". Bis solche Verfahren zum medizinischen Alltag gehören, mag es noch eine Weile hin sein, schon heute lässt sich aber ermitteln, wie im Falle von familiärem Darmkrebs, ob man Anlageträger ist, also ein verändertes Gen im Erbgut aufweist. Mit diesem Wissen ist es wiederum möglich, gezielter Untersuchungen und Maßnahmen zur Vorsorge und Prävention in Anspruch zu nehmen

Recommendations on Postoperative Activities After Abdominal Operations and Incisional Hernia Repair—A National and International Survey

Background: There is no conclusive data on postoperative recommendations after abdominal and hernia surgery, and there is significant variation in the literature on that question. Thus, this study evaluates the status quo of recommendations of postoperative activity restriction after abdominal surgery.Materials and Methods: A national (German) and international survey of general surgeons on postoperative recommendations after abdominal and hernia surgery was pooled and analyzed.Results: A total of 74.6% recommended postoperative reduced activity for 2 weeks or less after laparoscopy. For midline laparotomy, 48.8% considered a reduced activity of 4 weeks or less to be sufficient. A majority from the national survey recommended more than 4 weeks instead (60.2%), whereas only 31.5% from the international survey did so (p = 0.000). In the pooled analysis, 258 of 450 (57.3%) rated 4 weeks or less suitable. However, the recommendations differed significantly between the surveys (4 weeks or less: a national survey, 47.1% vs. international survey, 64.6%; p = 0.000).Conclusion: There was substantial variation in the given recommendations. However, we found no evidence against immediate mobilization, reduced physical activity, and lifting for up to 2 weeks after laparoscopic surgery and for up to 4 weeks after open abdominal surgery and open incisional/ventral hernia repair in uncomplicated and standard cases. There might be individual and socioeconomic benefits to allow patients to return to their whole personal level of activity and work without putting them at risk of complications. Due to lack of evidence, both retrospective and prospective, controlled studies are in need to develop reliable recommendations.</jats:p

Chronic Liver Disease Increases Mortality Following Pancreatoduodenectomy

According to the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS), data about the impact of pre-existing liver pathologies on delayed gastric emptying (DGE) after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) according to the definitions of the International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery (ISGPS) are lacking. We therefore investigated the impact of DGE after PD according to ISGPS in patients with liver cirrhosis (LC) and advanced liver fibrosis (LF). Patients were analyzed with respect to pre-existing liver pathologies (LC and advanced LF, n = 15, 6% vs. no liver pathologies, n = 240, 94%) in relation to demographic factors, comorbidities, intraoperative characteristics, mortality and postoperative complications, with special emphasis on DGE. DGE was equally distributed (DGE grade A, p = 1.000; B, p = 0.396; C, p = 0.607). Particularly, the first day of solid food intake (p = 0.901), the duration of intraoperative administered nasogastric tube (NGT) (p = 0.812), the rate of re-insertion of NGT (p = 0.072), and the need for parenteral nutrition (p = 0.643) did not differ. However, patients with LC and advanced LF showed a higher ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) score (p = 0.016), intraoperatively received more erythrocyte transfusions (p = 0.029), stayed longer in the intensive care unit (p = 0.010) and showed more intraabdominal abscess formation (p = 0.006). Moreover, we did observe a higher mortality rate amongst patients with pre-existing liver diseases (p = 0.021), and reoperation was a risk factor for higher mortality (p ≤ 0.001) in the multivariate analysis. In our study, we could not detect a difference with respect to DGE classified by ISGPS; however, we did observe a higher mortality rate amongst these patients and thus, they should be critically evaluated for PD