Dataset Information

Effectiveness of prehabilitation for patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Undergoing major surgery can induce physical and functional decline. Prehabilitation programmes aim to improve physical fitness and function preoperatively and could enhance postoperative recovery and outcomes. Prehabilitation interventions have been utilised across a range of orthopaedic populations of all ages and can be multimodal in nature. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of prehabilitation for patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery including day surgery procedures. It will also investigate the components of prehabilitation to understand optimum duration and frequency of programmes.

Methods/design

Systematic review and meta-analysis designed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. A comprehensive electronic search will be performed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, Embase, PEDro and Cochrane CENTRAL databases in order to identify randomised control trials published between January 2000 to 25 March 2019. ISI Web of Science, System for information on grey literature and the European Union clinical trials registry will identify studies that are underway or unpublished. Two independent reviewers will carry out the searches, study selection (title and abstract and full text stages), data extraction, risk of bias assessment (Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0) and evaluation of overall strength of evidence. Meta-analyses will be used for data which demonstrates homogeneity, otherwise a narrative synthesis will be performed for groups of studies of high heterogeneity (I² >50%). The overall strength of the body of evidence will be assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

Ethics and dissemination

This study raises no ethical issues. This study aims to identify the effectiveness of prehabilitation interventions and may assist clinicians in determining which components, duration, frequency and the method of delivery would form the most effective prehabilitation intervention for patients undergoing an orthopaedic surgical procedure. The findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations.

Prospero registration number

CRD42019123268.

SUBMITTER: Punnoose A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6887053 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness of prehabilitation for patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Punnoose Anuj A Weiss Ori O Khanduja Vikas V Rushton Alison B AB

BMJ open 20191119 11

<h4>Introduction</h4>Undergoing major surgery can induce physical and functional decline. Prehabilitation programmes aim to improve physical fitness and function preoperatively and could enhance postoperative recovery and outcomes. Prehabilitation interventions have been utilised across a range of orthopaedic populations of all ages and can be multimodal in nature. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of prehabilitation for patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery including day ...[more]

PMID: 31748299

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and Objectives: Patients undergoing cardiac surgery are particularly vulnerable for developing postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the role of preoperative chest physiotherapy in such patients. Materials and Methods: All original articles that assessed patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery, with preoperative chest physiotherapy, and compared them to patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery, without preoperative chest physiotherapy, were included. Animal studies, studies conducted prior to the year 2000, commentaries, or general discussion papers whose authors did not present original data were excluded. Studies assessing physiotherapy regimens other than chest physiotherapy were also excluded. The search was performed using the following electronic resources: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the PubMed central database, and Embase. The included studies were assessed for potential bias using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing the risk of bias. Each article was read carefully, and any relevant data were extracted. The extracted data were registered, tabulated, and analyzed using Review Manager software. Results: A total of 10 articles investigating 1458 patients were included in the study. The studies were published from 2006 to 2019. The populations were patients scheduled for elective CABG/cardiac surgery, and they were classified into two groups: the interventional (I) group, involving 651 patients, and the control (C) group, involving 807 patients. The meta-analysis demonstrated no significant differences between the interventional and control groups in surgery time and ICU duration, but a significant difference was found in the time of mechanical ventilation and the length of hospital stay, favoring the interventional group. A significant difference was shown in the forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV1% predicted), forced vital capacity (FVC% predicted), and maximum inspiratory pressure (Pi-max), favoring the interventional group. Conclusions: This study is limited by the fact that one of the included ten studies was not an RCT. Moreover, due to lack of the assessment of certain variables in some studies, the highest number of studies included in a meta-analysis was the hospital stay length (eight studies), and the other variables were analyzed in a fewer number of studies. The data obtained can be considered as initial results until more inclusive RCTs are conducted involving a larger meta-analysis. However, in the present study, the intervention was proved to be protective against the occurrence of PPCs. The current work concluded that preoperative chest physiotherapy can yield better outcomes in patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery.

Project description:BackgroundPrehabilitation aims at enhancing patients' functional capacity and overall health status to enable them to withstand a forthcoming stressor like surgery. Our aim was to synthesise the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation for patients awaiting elective surgery compared with usual preoperative care.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, the CRD database, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO ICTRP and the dissertation databases OADT and DART. Studies comparing prehabilitation for patients with elective surgery to usual preoperative care were included if they reported cost outcomes. All types of economic evaluations (EEs) were included. The primary outcome of the review was cost-effectiveness based on cost-utility analyses (CUAs). The risk of bias of trial-based EEs was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool and the ROBINS-I tool and the credibility of model-based EEs with the ISPOR checklist. Methodological quality of full EEs was assessed using the CHEC checklist. The EEs' results were synthesised narratively using vote counting based on direction of effect.ResultsWe included 45 unique studies: 25 completed EEs and 20 ongoing studies. Of the completed EEs, 22 were trial-based and three model-based, corresponding to four CUAs, three cost-effectiveness analyses, two cost-benefit analyses, 12 cost-consequence analyses and four cost-minimization analyses. Three of the four trial-based CUAs (75%) found prehabilitation cost-effective, i.e. more effective and/or less costly than usual care. Overall, 16/25 (64.0%) EEs found prehabilitation cost-effective. When excluding studies of insufficient credibility/critical risk of bias, this number reduced to 14/23 (60.9%). In 8/25 (32.0%), cost-effectiveness was unclear, e.g. because prehabilitation was more effective and more costly, and in one EE prehabilitation was not cost-effective.ConclusionsWe found some evidence that prehabilitation for patients awaiting elective surgery is cost-effective compared to usual preoperative care. However, we suspect a relevant risk of publication bias, and most EEs were of high risk of bias and/or low methodological quality. Furthermore, there was relevant heterogeneity depending on the population, intervention and methods. Future EEs should be performed over a longer time horizon and apply a more comprehensive perspective.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020182813.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of prehabilitation for patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction

Methods/design

Ethics and dissemination

Prospero registration number

Publications

Effectiveness of prehabilitation for patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets