Background Preoperative physical fitness is predictive of postoperative outcome. Patients with lesser aerobic capacity are at greater risk of postoperative complications, longer hospital stays, and ...mortality. Prehabilitation may improve physical fitness, but it is unknown whether enhanced fitness translates to an improvement in postoperative outcome. Methods This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the ability of prehabilitation to influence postoperative outcome after intra-abdominal operations. Randomized controlled trials with at least 1 group undergoing a preoperative exercise intervention/prehabilitation were included. The following databases were searched: AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed/Medline, and The Cochrane Library. Data extracted from 9 full-articles included author(s), population demographics, type of operation, postoperative measures of outcome, and type of treatment of the prehabilitation and control groups. Methodologic quality was assessed using GRADEpro, and the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to measure study bias. Results Prehabilitation consisting of inspiratory muscle training, aerobic exercise, and/or resistance training can decrease all types of postoperative complications after intra-abdominal operations (odds ratio: 0.59, 95% confidence interval: 0.38–0.91, P = .03). It is unclear from our meta-analysis whether prehabilitation can decrease postoperative length of stay, because the number of studies that examined length of stay was small ( n = 4). No postoperative mortality was reported in any study, and conclusions could not be drawn on the ability of exercise to influence operative mortality. The methodologic quality of studies was, however, “very low.” Conclusion Prehabilitation appears to be beneficial in decreasing the incidence of postoperative complications; however, more high-quality studies are needed to validate its use in the preoperative setting.
Although complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) utilization in breast cancer patients is reported to be high, there are few data on CAM practices in breast patients specifically during ...radiation. This prospective, multi-institutional study was conducted to define CAM utilization in breast cancer during definitive radiation.
A validated CAM instrument with a self-skin assessment was administered to 360 Stage 0-III breast cancer patients from 5 centers during the last week of radiation. All data were analyzed to detect significant differences between users/nonusers.
CAM usage was reported in 54% of the study cohort (n=194/360). Of CAM users, 71% reported activity-based CAM (eg, Reiki, meditation), 26% topical CAM, and 45% oral CAM. Only 16% received advice/counseling from naturopathic/homeopathic/medical professionals before initiating CAM. CAM use significantly correlated with higher education level (P<.001), inversely correlated with concomitant hormone/radiation therapy use (P=.010), with a trend toward greater use in younger patients (P=.066). On multivariate analysis, level of education (OR: 6.821, 95% CI: 2.307-20.168, P<.001) and hormones/radiation therapy (OR: 0.573, 95% CI: 0.347-0.949, P=.031) independently predicted for CAM use. Significantly lower skin toxicity scores were reported in CAM users vs nonusers, respectively (mild: 34% vs 25%, severe: 17% vs 29%, P=.017).
This is the first prospective study to assess CAM practices in breast patients during radiation, with definition of these practices as the first step for future investigation of CAM/radiation interactions. These results should alert radiation oncologists that a large percentage of breast cancer patients use CAM during radiation without disclosure or consideration for potential interactions, and should encourage increased awareness, communication, and documentation of CAM practices in patients undergoing radiation treatment for breast cancer.
