Background The preoperative period (prehabilitation) may represent a more appropriate time than the postoperative period to implement an intervention. The impact of prehabilitation on recovery of function al exercise capacity was thus studied in patients undergoing colorectal resection for cancer. Methods A parallel-arm single-blind superiority randomized controlled trial was conducted. Seventy-seven patients were randomized to receive either prehabilitation (n = 38) or rehabilitation (n = 39). Both groups received a home-based intervention of moderate aerobic and resistance exercises, nutritional counseling with protein supplementation, and relaxation exercises initiated either 4 weeks before surgery (prehabilitation) or immediately after surgery (rehabilitation), and continued for 8 weeks after surgery. Patients were managed with an enhanced recovery pathway. Primary outcome was functional exercise capacity measured using the validated 6-min walk test. Results Median duration of prehabilitation was 24.5 days. While awaiting surgery, functional walking capacity increased (≥ 20 m) in a higher proportion of the prehabilitation group compared with the rehabilitation group (53 vs. 15%, adjusted P = 0.006). Complication rates and duration of hospital stay were similar. The difference between baseline and 8-week 6-min walking test was significantly higher in the prehabilitation compared with the rehabilitation group (+23.7 m [SD, 54.8] vs. -21.8 m [SD, 80.7]; mean difference 45.4 m [95% CI, 13.9 to 77.0]). A higher proportion of the prehabilitation group were also recovered to or above baseline exercise capacity at 8 weeks compared with the rehabilitation group (84 vs. 62%, adjusted P = 0.049). Conclusion Meaningful changes in postoperative functional exercise capacity can be achieved with a prehabilitation program.

Prehabilitation versus rehabilitation: a randomized control trial in patients undergoing colorectal resection for cancer.

The increasing prevalence of morbid obesity together with the development of laparoscopic approaches has led to a steep rise in the number of bariatric operations. These guidelines intend to define the comparative effectivness and surrounding circumstances of the various types of obesity surgery. A consensus panel representing the fields of general/endoscopic surgery, nutrition and epidemiology convened to agree on specific questions in obesity surgery. Databases were systematically searched for clinical trial results in order to produce evidence-based recommendations. Following two days of discussion by the experts and a plenary discussion, the final statements were issued. After the patient’s multidisciplinary evaluation, obesity surgery should be considered in adults with a documented BMI greater than or equal to 35 and related comorbidity, or a BMI of at least 40. In addition to standard laboratory testing, chest radiography, electrocardiography, spirometry, and abdominal ultrasonography, the preoperative evaluation of obesity surgery patients also includes upper gastrointestinal endoscopy or radiologic evaluation with a barium meal. Psychiatric consultation and polysomnography can safely be restricted to patients with clinical symptoms on preoperative screening. Adjustable gastric banding (GB), vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and biliopancreatic diversion (BPD) are all effective in the treatment of morbid obesity, but differ in degree of weight loss and range of complications. The choice of procedure therefore should be tailored to the individual situation. There is evidence that a laparoscopic approach is advantageous for LAGB, VBG, and GB (and probably also for BPD). Antibiotic and antithromboembolic prophylaxis should be used routinely. Patients should be seen 3 to 8 times during the first postoperative year, 1 to 4 times during the second year and once or twice a year thereafter. Outcome assessment after surgery should include weight loss and maintainance, nutritional status, comorbidities and quality-of-life.

Obesity surgery: evidence-based guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES).

The Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease-Health Related Quality of Life (GERD-HRQL) instrument was introduced approximately 10 years ago to provide a quantitative method of measuring symptom severity in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Since that time the instrument has been used to assess treatment response to medication, endoscopic procedures, and surgery for GERD. However, the development of the instrument has progressed over the course of several years, and there is no one source which reviews this progress. The purpose of this article is to summarize the development and testing of the GERD-HRQL. The GERD-HRQL was initially developed to measure the typical symptoms of GERD. It was initially determined to have face validity and subsequent studies assessed its content validity, criterion validity, concurrent validity, predictive validity and construct validity. Reliability was determined by the test-retest method. Responsiveness was determined by the effects of treatment. This instrument is practical, with little administrative burden. There are few missing responses. Because there are 51 possible scores, the instrument has a high level of precision; and because of the response anchors, cannot have a floor effect, and only 4/372 patients reached the highest score of 50, implying little ceiling effect. The instrument has been translated into several languages, and appears valid, reliable and practical in each.

The development of the GERD-HRQL symptom severity instrument.

Background:

Laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer may improve short-term outcome without compromising long-term survival or disease control. Recent evidence suggests that the difference between laparoscopic and open surgery may be less significant when perioperative care is optimized within an enhanced recovery programme. This study compared short-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open resection of colorectal cancer within such a programme.



Methods:

Between January 2002 and March 2004, 62 patients were randomized on a 2 : 1 basis to receive laparoscopic (n = 43) or open (n = 19) surgery. All were entered into an enhanced recovery programme. Length of hospital stay was the primary endpoint. Secondary outcomes of functional recovery, quality of life and cost were assessed for 3 months after surgery.



Results:

Demographics of the two groups were similar. Length of hospital stay after laparoscopic resection was 32 (95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 7 to 51) per cent shorter than for open resection (P = 0·018). Combined hospital, convalescent and readmission stay was 37 (95 per cent c.i. 10 to 56) per cent shorter (P = 0·012). The relative risk of complications, quality of life results and cost data were similar in the two groups.



Conclusion:

Despite perioperative optimization of open surgery for colorectal cancer, short-term outcomes were better following laparoscopic surgery. There was no deterioration in quality of life or increased cost associated with the laparoscopic approach. Copyright © 2005 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/bjs.5216

Randomized clinical trial comparing laparoscopic and open surgery for colorectal cancer within an enhanced recovery programme.

Several studies have demonstrated laparoscopic antireflux surgery (LAS) for the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) to be efficient at short- and midterm follow-up evaluations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results for LAS 10 years after surgery. The 100 consecutive patients who underwent LAS by a single surgeon in 1993 were entered into a prospective database. Nissen fundoplication was performed for 68 patients, and partial posterior fundoplication (modified Toupet procedure) was performed for 32 patients. Evaluations of the outcome were made 5 and 10 years after surgery. A structured symptom questionnaire and upper gastrointestinal barium series were used at 5 years. The same questionnaire and an added quality-of-life questionnaire (the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index [GIQLI]) were used at 10 years. Seven patients died of unrelated causes during the 10-year period. Four patients underwent revision surgery: one patient for persistent dysphagia and three patients for recurrent reflux symptoms. Three patients were lost to any follow-up study. At 5 years, 93% of the patients were free of significant reflux symptoms. At 10 years, 89.5% of the patients still were free of significant reflux (93.3% after Nissen, 81.8% after Toupet). Major side effects (flatulence and abdominal distension) were related to “wind” problems. The GIQLI scores at 10 years were significantly better than the preoperative scores of the patients under medical therapy with proton pump inhibitors. Elimination of GERD symptoms improved quality of life and eliminated the need for daily acid suppression in most patients. These results, apparent 5 years after the operation, still were valid at 10 years.

Clinical results of laparoscopic fundoplication at ten years after surgery.

Measuring health-related quality of life (QoL) after surgery is essential for decision making by patients, surgeons, and payers. The aim of this consensus conference was twofold. First, it was to determine for which diseases endoscopic surgery results in better postoperative QoL than open surgery. Second, it was to recommend QoL instruments for clinical research. An expert panel selected 12 conditions in which QoL and endoscopic surgery are important. For each condition, studies comparing endoscopic and open surgery in terms of QoL were identified. The expert panel reached consensus on the relative benefits of endoscopic surgery and recommended generic and disease-specific QoL instruments for use in clinical research. Randomized trials indicate that QoL improves earlier after endoscopic than open surgery for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), cholecystolithiasis, colorectal cancer, inguinal hernia, obesity (gastric bypass), and uterine disorders that require hysterectomy. For spleen, prostate, malignant kidney, benign colorectal, and benign non-GERD esophageal diseases, evidence from nonrandomized trials supports the use of laparoscopic surgery. However, many studies failed to collect long-term results, used nonvalidated questionnaires, or measured QoL components only incompletely. The following QoL instruments can be recommended: for benign esophageal and gallbladder disease, the GIQLI or the QOLRAD together with SF-36 or the PGWB; for obesity surgery, the IWQOL-Lite with the SF-36; for colorectal cancer, the FACT-C or the EORTC QLQ-C30/CR38; for inguinal and renal surgery, the VAS for pain with the SF-36 (or the EORTC QLQ-C30 in case of malignancy); and after hysterectomy, the SF-36 together with an evaluation of urinary and sexual function. Laparoscopic surgery provides better postoperative QoL in many clinical situations. Researchers would improve the quality of future studies by using validated QoL instruments such as those recommended here.

/pdf/evaluation-of-quality-of-life-after-laparoscopic-surgery-2rpkexvk7x.pdf

Evaluation of quality of life after laparoscopic surgery: evidence-based guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery.

Background: Measuring health-related quality of life (QoL) after surgery is essential for decision making by patients, surgeons, and payers. The aim of this consensus conference was twofold. First, it was to determine for which diseases endoscopic surgery results in better postoperative QoL than open surgery. Second, it was to recommend QoL instruments for clinical research. Methods: An expert panel selected 12 conditions in which QoL and endoscopic surgery are important. For each condition, studies comparing endoscopic and open surgery in terms of QoL were identified. The expert panel reached consensus on the relative benefits of endoscopic surgery and recommended generic and disease-specific QoL instruments for use in clinical research.

http://atarazanas.sci.uma.es/docs/articulos/16494428.pdf

B. Ure

Papers

Evaluation of quality of life after laparoscopic surgery: evidence-based guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery.

Evaluation of quality of life after laparoscopic surgery