The “fast-track” and the enhanced recovery after surgery programs proposed in the late 1990s demonstrated a significant effect on postoperative outcome. Intraoperative and immediate postoperative evidence-based interventions, such as minimally invasive surgery, multimodal analgesia, early mobilization, and early feeding, were among the most impactful elements producing shorter length of hospital stay and reduction in complications, hospital readmissions, and healthcare costs.1  In this context the anesthesiologist’s role evolved from being a physician providing primarily optimal surgical conditions and perioperative pain relief to that of a perioperative physician, working closely with surgeons and other health allied professions. The fast-track and enhanced recovery after surgery protocols emphasize the relevant effects of preoperative carbohydrate loading, beside the intraoperative and immediate postoperative interventions. The preoperative period represents an opportune time to prepare the patient for the stress of surgery by increasing his or her physiologic reserve. Besides medical management, preoperative optimization of cardiopulmonary functional capacity may be particularly important for the patients who are older, are frail, have cancer, are malnourished, and are experiencing social marginalization. In these populations a decline in functional capacity represents a significant surgical risk. Functional capacity is the term used to reflect the ability to perform activities of daily living and is determined by the integrity of the pulmonary, cardiovascular, and musculoskeletal systems.2  Low functional capacity before surgery has been associated with greater chance of dying within 30 days after surgery, longer postoperative hospital stay, and higher rate of surgical complications.3  The preoperative time should thus be valued as an opportunity to evaluate and stratify surgical risk and intervene. The optimum management of high-risk patients involves multidisciplinary collaborative decision making, and the anesthesiologist is an integral part of this process.

From Risk Prediction to Risk Attenuation

Risk prediction has been of great interest to clinicians, and efforts have been made to identify a number of physiologic and clinical outcome measures that can predict adverse events related to the perioperative period. Risk prediction is even more relevant as we shift toward patient-centered care, whereby healthcare decisions are driven by patients’ values and preferences in partnership with physicians.4  Specific outcome measures, both objective (cardiopulmonary exercise test, hand grip strength, walk test, brain natriuretic peptide) and self-reported (Duke Activity Status Index), have therefore received the attention of clinicians interested in the care of high-risk patients scheduled for major surgery.4  More specifically, these approaches are valuable to triage appropriate levels of postoperative care, to use intensive care monitoring, and even to decide whether to proceed or not with surgery.

If the decision is to proceed with surgery, the multidisciplinary team can then coordinate clinical optimization, not only to improve pre-existing comorbidities pharmacologically but also to modify risk factors associated with physical status to increase physiologic reserve in an appropriate time window between diagnosis and surgery. This is where risk stratification and prediction transition to risk attenuation.5  To compare with a runner training for an upcoming marathon, preparing the patients for surgery with prehabilitation could represent a compelling strategy to intervene on those modifiable risk factors that influence postoperative outcome.

Prehabilitation: What Is It?

Prehabilitation is not a new concept; in fact, it was applied successfully in the mid-1990s to improve the health of poorly nourished British military recruits.6  The word prehabilitation itself was subsequently proposed by Topp et al.7  as a strengthening program before an intensive care admission. Prehabilitation is a program of enhancing functional capacity of an individual to enable him or her to better withstand a stressful event. The preoperative period may be an opportune time to promote prehabilitation by addressing elements like physical unfitness, malnutrition, and anxiety, with the intention to mitigate surgery-related postoperative side effects and facilitate the recovery process whereby the capacity to go back to active daily functions is of paramount importance to patients.

Prehabilitation has initially focused on exercise to improve functional health in different surgical specialties; however, it has expanded to a multimodal approach which includes: (1) structured and personalized aerobic and resistance, flexibility, and balance training to minimize/prevent impairments and enhance physical fitness; (2) dietary interventions to counteract the catabolic state and to support anabolism in synergy with exercise (3) antistress interventions to foster resilience and self efficacy; and (4) cessation of adverse health habits (e.g., alcohol abuse, smoking).8 

With regard to exercise, current recommendations include a personalized assessment followed by an intervention that combines moderate and vigorous exercise as appropriate for the individual.9  In general, individuals who have been the least fit and the most sedentary show the most improvements when they commence an exercise program.10  Resistance exercises are most helpful to those patients who have lost muscle mass and need to recuperate the strength necessary to carry out independent activities of daily living.11  Great attention should also be given to balance and flexibility exercises in older patients (fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

The Modified BORG Scale is used to assess patients’ perceived effort during aerobic and resistance exercise. Aerobic: To be training at moderate intensity (aerobic exercise) the target perceived exertion should be between 5 and 7 (out of breath to trouble breathing). Resistance: To benefit from resistance training, it is important to assess the number of repetitions that can be completed with a given weight. Patients should feel that the exercise is “somewhat hard to hard” (6 to 8) when completing the required number of repetitions per set. Once the perceived exertion falls to less than 6, the weight can be progressed to maintain the level of difficulty. For the older frail patient the intensity of the progression can be assessed also with the BORG scale. Start with short bouts of aerobic exercise and low resistance number of repetitions.

Fig. 1.

The Modified BORG Scale is used to assess patients’ perceived effort during aerobic and resistance exercise. Aerobic: To be training at moderate intensity (aerobic exercise) the target perceived exertion should be between 5 and 7 (out of breath to trouble breathing). Resistance: To benefit from resistance training, it is important to assess the number of repetitions that can be completed with a given weight. Patients should feel that the exercise is “somewhat hard to hard” (6 to 8) when completing the required number of repetitions per set. Once the perceived exertion falls to less than 6, the weight can be progressed to maintain the level of difficulty. For the older frail patient the intensity of the progression can be assessed also with the BORG scale. Start with short bouts of aerobic exercise and low resistance number of repetitions.

The purpose of nutritional prehabilitation is to prepare (or optimize) the patient for surgery and recovery. The greater sensitivity of protein catabolism to nutritional support, in particular to amino acids, could have important implications for the nutritional management of patients during the healing process.12  To stimulate muscle protein synthesis, leucine-rich dietary protein (whey protein) immediately after a bout of resistance exercise supports muscle protein synthesis.13  Relaxation techniques (deep breathing exercises, progressive muscle relaxation, and meditation), cognitive behavioral therapy, guided imagery, or problem-solving and coping strategies have been shown to improve quality of life, reduce anxiety and depression, and reduce pain severity and fatigue.14 

Prehabilitation Is a Collaborative Effort

Traditionally, in surgical practice, the decision to operate or not is made between a surgeon and the patient with or without the presence of the spouse, partner, or caregiver. The patient is then sent, if necessary, to other physicians (anesthesiologists, cardiologists, pneumonologists, geriatricians, oncologists) for consultation before pursuing an elective surgical procedure.

Although such an approach is acceptable for fit patients, it may be suboptimal for those who are at high risk, frail, and old because decision for surgery should consider patient-specific factors. Engaging perioperative physicians to consider prehabilitation for their patients represents a paradigm shift from the traditional silo-driven surgeon-centric approach. The natural waiting time for surgery could be then an opportunity for many high-risk patients facing decisions about major surgery to address important questions about their health, improve their ability to be independent, and change their lifestyle. Multidisciplinary teams or tumor boards can foster collaboration and provide a platform whereby patients are screened and evaluated and interventions are planned.

The surgical prehabilitation clinic, integrated within the preoperative assessment clinic, can be the initial step where high-risk patients are sent for a detailed evaluation by either the family doctor or the surgeons or via the preoperative clinic itself (fig. 2). The first step in the process is the screening, for the purpose of predicting the likelihood of poor outcomes.15  The second step includes a structured assessment of functional capacity and nutritional and psychologic status together with laboratory testing. This step includes the review of clinical, functional, metabolic, and emotional assessments with the patient followed by a codesigned, structured, and personalized prescription, to be discussed with the patient and the perioperative treating team. Exercise training can be either home-based for those patients who have exercised before or are familiar with exercise equipment, or supervised by a professional in case of inability to exercise alone for various reasons (poor compliance, sedentary lifestyle, older, frail). Special consideration should be given to those who are experiencing social marginalization because they may lack social support, access to good nutrition, and other resources such as transport. The necessity to monitor with regular follow-up assessments, using objective and self-reported outcome measures, and the effectiveness of the planned interventions before and after surgery are very important. If necessary it is recommended to modify them because one intervention does not fit all.

Fig. 2.

The McGill Peri Operative Program model: integration of preoperative and prehabilitation clinics. From the surgeons’ office to prehabilitation clinic and/or preoperative clinic. Both clinics work together to better optimize the patient in preparation for surgery and avoiding duplication.

Fig. 2.

The McGill Peri Operative Program model: integration of preoperative and prehabilitation clinics. From the surgeons’ office to prehabilitation clinic and/or preoperative clinic. Both clinics work together to better optimize the patient in preparation for surgery and avoiding duplication.

Does Prehabilitation Work?

Many systematic reviews with meta-analyses and randomized, controlled trials have been published over the last 15 yr indicating a growing interest in prehabilitation. Although different methodologies, strategies, and outcome measurements have been used, most of the results reported that prehabilitation enhances functional capacity before and after surgery, does not harm, and can be implemented for some types of cancer surgery with no age limit.16–20  Both unimodal (either exercise or nutrition alone) or multimodal (combination of exercise, nutrition, anti-anxiety strategies, smoking cessation) prehabilitation can be used for this purpose. With regard to postoperative clinical outcomes (length of hospital stay, readmissions, complications), there have been systematic reviews demonstrating an association between positive changes in fitness and lower severity and rate of complications.21–24  With regard to healthcare costs of prehabilitation, recent data have been published indicating potential cost savings.25,26  An association has been shown between prehabilitation and reduced tumor progression and 5-year disease-free survival in patients with stage III colorectal cancer.27,28  Obviously, in view of small, single-center studies, heterogeneity of the methods, and outcomes used, caution is advised in interpreting the results. Large prospective trials are presently being conducted to reinforce the evidence and guide clinicians in the implementation of prehabilitation programs across different surgical specialties.29,30 

Prehabilitation Favors Patient Functional Recovery

Traditional audit measures like perioperative complications and hospital length of stay are of interest to clinicians and administrators, but they do not capture the complexity of the construct recovery or the perspective of patients.31  Although one of the main benefits of enhanced recovery after surgery is the short length of stay, it is clear that patients will not be fully recovered, even after cholecystetomy.32  Lawrence et al.33  observed that, in patients older than 60 yr undergoing major abdominal surgery, the mean time to recovery to preoperative baseline values was 6 months for instrumental activities of daily living. When patients and clinicians were asked to identify recovery-related concepts after abdominal surgery, patients emphasized energy level, functional status (daily routine, recreational activities, endurance), and quality of sleep as important elements of recovery. In contrast, clinicians put more emphasis on symptoms like pain, cognition, and bowel function.34  Of the different outcomes measures available, function best quantifies patient-centered postoperative outcomes, in particular for older adults, because it represents the ability to maintain independent living at home.

Considerations When Implementing Prehabilitation

Duration of the Program

Referral to a prehabilitation program should occur early in the clinical evaluation of a patient likely to undergo surgery. Although the ideal intervention length has not been established, three to four weeks of intervention has been found to be sufficient to increase functional capacity by 5% to 10%.35  However, if patients are also frail, they might need a longer time. It is plausible that the earlier the patient can be evaluated, the more likely the intervention will be meaningful. This can be done by complying with institutional and oncologic guidelines from the time of diagnosis to the time of surgery.

Guidelines on the optimal length of time from diagnosis to surgical treatment in cancer care vary from country to country, based on local consensus or outlined in the recommendations of countries’ oncological and surgical societies.36  Obviously within the cancer group the biology and evolution of cancer cells vary from organ to organ. The evidence to support cutoffs of four, six, or eight weeks37  is not strong, but healthcare policy makers use benchmarks for wait times as indicators. This represents a challenge when specific groups of patients, like those who are older, frail, or malnourished, or experiencing social marginalization or comorbidities, would instead need sufficient time to be optimized before surgery. A prolonged recovery period that delays adjuvant treatment may also have important implications for the survival of cancer patients. In the noncancer group the duration of prehabilitation can be extended if necessary, but a discussion with the patient and surgeon is always encouraged. Overall, there is a need for more collaboration between surgeons, anesthesiologists, administrators, and patient advocacy groups.

Patients in need of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and immunotherapy would also benefit from prehabilitation either starting before neoadjuvant therapy or while waiting for surgery. Preliminary findings from a randomized, controlled trial showed that patients with esophageal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant therapy and receiving prehabilitation had fewer readmissions but no changes in morbidity and mortality.38  Prehabilitation in patients undergoing neoadjuvant treatment for rectal cancer was also shown to be feasible and impactful on patient’s functional outcome.39  The prehabilitation program should then continue if possible after surgery if the patient needs adjuvant therapy. The multidisciplinary team and the tumor board should evaluate each patient and promote timely prehabilitation for high-risk patients such as those who are malnourished, sarcopenic, older, or frail, are experiencing social marginalization, and are experiencing several comorbidities.

The Challenge of Patient Adherence and Patient Engagement

A significant barrier to effective prehabilitation is the patient’s failure to follow the recommendations. Nonadherence is presented in different ways, misunderstanding either the advice or the reason for participating in the program, carrying out incorrectly parts of the program, or even ignoring the program completely.40  It is important that patients understand what prehabilitation entails and the purpose of each intervention and participate in the creation of the pathway, and that every effort is made to ensure patients are able and capable to apply the intervention when they go home.41  Studies on health literacy have shown that 40 to 80% of medical information provided by healthcare practitioners is retained.42  For this reason, during the assessment and screening of a candidate for prehabilitation, patients are advised to bring a relative or a friend with them at the first visit to make sure they understand what they need to do at home. A diary with clear pictorial instructions on how to carry out the interventions or a video could be provided to help with adherence.

The results of patient engagement include patient-reported better quality of care, better patient experiences, and more transparent decision making.43  At the highest level of engagement, empowerment, decisions are placed in the hands of patients who understand the potential benefits of prehabilitation and share in the cocreation of their personalized prehabilitation program. When patients are approached to participate in a prehabilitation program, they want to have as much information as possible about the time spent with the program, the possible costs associated with coming to the center for training, and whether the program will delay surgery. In this context, self-efficacy can be a major determinant in engaging patients in the prehabilitation program.44  Furthermore, believing that fitness helps to promote an early and better recovery after surgery leads to an improvement in one’s functional ability in spite of possible constraints and challenges associated with exercise.

The Frail Older Patient

With aging, functional reserve and the capacity to meet the demands of different organs are decreased, thus placing older patients at higher surgical risk. Functional capacity is an important patient-centered objective, and older persons perceive consistently that maintaining their independent function needs to be a top priority.

Sedentary activity, social isolation, malnutrition, and depression are very common in older frail patients and have been recognized as risk factors for poor postoperative outcomes.45  Malnutrition in the older adult develops as a consequence of inadequate nutrient intake or altered requirements and is recognized as a loss of body mass, decreased strength and function, and reduced ability to mount an immunologic defense.46 

Despite the strong and well-recognized association of frailty with adverse postoperative outcomes, interventions specifically tailored to frail surgical patients are few and not always impactful on clinical outcomes.47,48  It is therefore necessary to identify procedure-specific risk evaluation and prescribe personalized prehabilitation interventions in concerted action with other specialties such as geriatrics. Strategies designed to promote better balance, flexibility, and muscle power by incorporating more rapid force-generating exercises at lower speed need to be considered in addition to aerobic exercise training.49  Maintaining body protein is the primary nutritional goal in older patients to prevent the development of sarcopenia and loss of function. To overcome the negative net protein balance (anabolism – catabolism), anabolism should be enhanced by increasing the quantity and by improving the quality of proteins.50 

Conclusion

Incorporating prehabilitation within the enhanced recovery after surgery program would allow the anesthesiologist as a perioperative physician to have a leadership role and work together with a multidisciplinary team. Because prehabilitation is a patient-centric program, participants would be empowered and develop a sense of purpose and resiliency as they choose to prepare themselves for an upcoming surgery. Prehabilitation is an innovative concept that requires more research to better elucidate the mechanistic aspects of how exercise intensity, in synergy with anabolic stimuli, can modulate the catabolic response to surgery and to enhance recovery. In addition, knowledge gaps remain to be addressed on issues such as outcomes to be measured, organization, technology, and costs. Ultimately patients will benefit from our efforts to improve surgical care.

Acknowledgments

The author thanks the team of the McGill University Health Centre (Montreal, Quebec, Canada) Prehabilitation Clinic and the Peri Operative Program for collaboration and support over the years.

Research Support

Support for this study was provided solely from institutional and/or departmental sources.

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

References

References
1.
Ljungqvist
O
Scott
M
Fearon
KC
.
Enhanced recovery after surgery: A review.
JAMA Surg
.
2017
;
152
:
292
8
2.
Arena
R
Myers
J
Williams
MA
Gulati
M
Kligfield
P
Balady
GJ
Collins
E
Fletcher
G
;
American Heart Association Committee on Exercise, Rehabilitation, and Prevention of the Council on Clinical Cardiology; American Heart Association Council on Cardiovascular Nursing
.
Assessment of functional capacity in clinical and research settings: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association Committee on Exercise, Rehabilitation, and Prevention of the Council on Clinical Cardiology and the Council on Cardiovascular Nursing.
Circulation
.
2007
;
116
:
329
43
3.
Snowden
CP
Prentis
JM
Anderson
HL
Roberts
DR
Randles
D
Renton
M
Manas
DM
.
Submaximal cardiopulmonary exercise testing predicts complications and hospital length of stay in patients undergoing major elective surgery.
Ann Surg
.
2010
;
251
:
535
41
4.
Wijeysundera
DN
Pearse
RM
Shulman
MA
Abbott
TEF
Torres
E
Ambosta
A
Croal
BL
Granton
JT
Thorpe
KE
Grocott
MPW
Farrington
C
Myles
PS
Cuthbertson
BH
;
METS study investigators
.
Assessment of functional capacity before major non-cardiac surgery: An international, prospective cohort study.
Lancet
.
2018
;
391
:
2631
40
5.
Carli
F
Feldman
LS
.
From preoperative risk assessment and prediction to risk attenuation: A case for prehabilitation.
Br J Anaesth
.
2019
;
122
:
11
3
6.
PREHABILITATION, rehabilitation, and revocation in the Army.
Br Med J
.
1946
;
1
:
192
7
7.
Topp
R
Ditmyer
M
King
K
Doherty
K
Hornyak
J
3rd
.
The effect of bed rest and potential of prehabilitation on patients in the intensive care unit.
AACN Clin Issues
.
2002
;
13
:
263
76
8.
Gillis
C
Li
C
Lee
L
Awasthi
R
Augustin
B
Gamsa
A
Liberman
AS
Stein
B
Charlebois
P
Feldman
LS
Carli
F
.
Prehabilitation versus rehabilitation: A randomized control trial in patients undergoing colorectal resection for cancer.
Anesthesiology
.
2014
;
121
:
937
47
9.
Riebe
D
Ehrman
JK
Liguori
G
Magal
M
;
American College of Sports Medicine
ACSM’s guidelines for exercise testing and prescription
.
2018
. Tenth edition,
Philadelphia
:
Wolters Kluwer
10.
Minnella
EM
Awasthi
R
Gillis
C
Fiore
JF
Jr
Liberman
AS
Charlebois
P
Stein
B
Bousquet-Dion
G
Feldman
LS
Carli
F
.
Patients with poor baseline walking capacity are most likely to improve their functional status with multimodal prehabilitation.
Surgery
.
2016
;
160
:
1070
9
11.
Westcott
WL
.
Resistance training is medicine: Effects of strength training on health.
Curr Sports Med Rep
.
2012
;
11
:
209
16
12.
Wolfe
RR
.
Update on protein intake: Importance of milk proteins for health status of the elderly.
Nutr Rev
.
2015
;
73
(
Suppl 1
):
41
7
13.
Stokes
T
Hector
AJ
Morton
RW
McGlory
C
Phillips
SM
.
Recent perspectives regarding the role of dietary protein for the promotion of muscle hypertrophy with resistance exercise training.
Nutrients
.
2018
;
10
:
180
14.
Tsimopoulou
I
Pasquali
S
Howard
R
Desai
A
Gourevitch
D
Tolosa
I
Vohra
R
.
Psychological prehabilitation before cancer surgery: A systematic review.
Ann Surg Oncol
.
2015
;
22
:
4117
23
15.
Minnella
EM
Carli
F
.
Prehabilitation and functional recovery for colorectal cancer patients.
Eur J Surg Oncol
.
2018
;
44
:
919
26
16.
Nakajima
H
Yokoyama
Y
Inoue
T
Nagaya
M
Mizuno
Y
Kadono
I
Nishiwaki
K
Nishida
Y
Nagino
M
.
Clinical benefit of preoperative exercise and nutritional therapy for patients undergoing hepato-pancreato-biliary surgeries for malignancy.
Ann Surg Oncol
.
2019
;
26
:
264
72
17.
Santa Mina
D
Hilton
WJ
Matthew
AG
Awasthi
R
Bousquet-Dion
G
Alibhai
SMH
Au
D
Fleshner
NE
Finelli
A
Clarke
H
Aprikian
A
Tanguay
S
Carli
F
.
Prehabilitation for radical prostatectomy: A multicentre randomized controlled trial.
Surg Oncol
.
2018
;
27
:
289
98
18.
Minnella
EM
Awasthi
R
Bousquet-Dion
G
Ferreira
V
Austin
B
Audi
C
Tanguay
S
Aprikian
A
Carli
F
Kassouf
W
.
Multimodal prehabilitation to enhance functional capacity following radical cystectomy: A randomized controlled trial.
Eur Urol Focus
.
2019
19.
Minnella
EM
Awasthi
R
Loiselle
SE
Agnihotram
RV
Ferri
LE
Carli
F
.
Effect of exercise and nutrition prehabilitation on functional capacity in esophagogastric cancer surgery: A randomized clinical trial.
JAMA Surg
.
2018
;
153
:
1081
9
20.
Bhatia
C
Kayser
B
.
Preoperative high-intensity interval training is effective and safe in deconditioned patients with lung cancer: A randomized clinical trial.
J Rehabil Med
.
2019
;
51
:
712
8
21.
Minnella
EM
Liberman
AS
Charlebois
P
Stein
B
Scheede-Bergdahl
C
Awasthi
R
Gillis
C
Bousquet-Dion
G
Ramanakuma
AV
Pecorelli
N
Feldman
LS
Carli
F
.
The impact of improved functional capacity before surgery on postoperative complications: A study in colorectal cancer.
Acta Oncol
.
2019
;
58
:
573
8
22.
Barberan-Garcia
A
Ubré
M
Roca
J
Lacy
AM
Burgos
F
Risco
R
Momblán
D
Balust
J
Blanco
I
Martínez-Pallí
G
.
Personalised prehabilitation in high-risk patients undergoing elective major abdominal surgery: A randomized blinded controlled trial.
Ann Surg
.
2018
;
267
:
50
6
23.
Hughes
MJ
Hackney
RJ
Lamb
PJ
Wigmore
SJ
Christopher Deans
DA
Skipworth
RJE
.
Prehabilitation before major abdominal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
World J Surg
.
2019
;
43
:
1661
8
24.
Steffens
D
Beckenkamp
PR
Hancock
M
Solomon
M
Young
J
.
Preoperative exercise halves the postoperative complication rate in patients with lung cancer: A systematic review of the effect of exercise on complications, length of stay and quality of life in patients with cancer.
Br J Sports Med
.
2018
;
52
:
344
25.
Howard
R
Yin
YS
McCandless
L
Wang
S
Englesbe
M
Machado-Aranda
D
.
Taking control of your surgery: Impact of a prehabilitation program on major abdominal surgery.
J Am Coll Surg
.
2019
;
228
:
72
80
26.
Barberan-Garcia
A
Ubre
M
Pascual-Argente
N
Risco
R
Faner
J
Balust
J
Lacy
AM
Puig-Junoy
J
Roca
J
Martinez-Palli
G
.
Post-discharge impact and cost-consequence analysis of prehabilitation in high-risk patients undergoing major abdominal surgery: Secondary results from a randomised controlled trial.
Br J Anaesth
.
2019
;
123
:
450
6
27.
Trépanier
M
Minnella
EM
Paradis
T
Awasthi
R
Kaneva
P
Schwartzman
K
Carli
F
Fried
GM
Feldman
LS
Lee
L
.
Improved disease-free survival after prehabilitation for colorectal cancer surgery.
Ann Surg
.
2019
;
270
:
493
501
28.
West
MA
Astin
R
Moyses
HE
Cave
J
White
D
Levett
DZH
Bates
A
Brown
G
Grocott
MPW
Jack
S
.
Exercise prehabilitation may lead to augmented tumor regression following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer.
Acta Oncol
.
2019
;
58
:
588
95
29.
van Rooijen
S
Carli
F
Dalton
S
Thomas
G
Bojesen
R
Le Guen
M
Barizien
N
Awasthi
R
Minnella
E
Beijer
S
Martínez-Palli
G
van Lieshout
R
Gögenur
I
Feo
C
Johansen
C
Scheede-Bergdahl
C
Roumen
R
Schep
G
Slooter
G
.
Multimodal prehabilitation in colorectal cancer patients to improve functional capacity and reduce postoperative complications: The first international randomized controlled trial for multimodal prehabilitation.
BMC Cancer
.
2019
;
19
:
98
30.
Current Controlled Trials
ISRCTN82233115, Supportive exercise programmes for accelerating recovery after major abdominal cancer surgery
.
2016
,
London
:
BioMed Central
31.
Maessen
JM
Dejong
CH
Kessels
AG
von Meyenfeldt
MF
;
Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Group
.
Length of stay: An inappropriate readout of the success of enhanced recovery programs.
World J Surg
.
2008
;
32
:
971
5
32.
Feldman
LS
Kaneva
P
Demyttenaere
S
Carli
F
Fried
GM
Mayo
NE
.
Validation of a physical activity questionnaire (CHAMPS) as an indicator of postoperative recovery after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
Surgery
.
2009
;
146
:
31
9
33.
Lawrence
VA
Hazuda
HP
Cornell
JE
Pederson
T
Bradshaw
PT
Mulrow
CD
Page
CP
.
Functional independence after major abdominal surgery in the elderly.
J Am Coll Surg
.
2004
;
199
:
762
72
34.
Neville
A
Lee
L
Antonescu
I
Mayo
NE
Vassiliou
MC
Fried
GM
Feldman
LS
.
Systematic review of outcomes used to evaluate enhanced recovery after surgery.
Br J Surg
.
2014
;
101
:
159
70
35.
Kim
DJ
Mayo
NE
Carli
F
Montgomery
DL
Zavorsky
GS
.
Responsive measures to prehabilitation in patients undergoing bowel resection surgery.
Tohoku J Exp Med
.
2009
;
217
:
109
15
36.
Moran
B
Cunningham
C
Singh
T
Sagar
P
Bradbury
J
Geh
I
Karandikar
S
.
Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain & Ireland (ACPGBI): Guidelines for the Management of Cancer of the Colon, Rectum and Anus (2017) - Surgical Management.
Colorectal Dis
.
2017
;
19 Suppl 1
:
18
36
37.
Pruitt
SL
Harzke
AJ
Davidson
NO
Schootman
M
.
Do diagnostic and treatment delays for colorectal cancer increase risk of death?
Cancer Causes Control
.
2013
;
24
:
961
77
38.
Cox
S
Powell
C
Carter
B
Hurt
C
Mukherjee
S
Crosby
TD
.
Role of nutritional status and intervention in oesophageal cancer treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy: Outcomes from SCOPE1.
Br J Cancer
.
2016
;
115
:
172
7
39.
Moug
SJ
Mutrie
N
Barry
SJE
Mackay
G
Steele
RJC
Boachie
C
Buchan
C
Anderson
AS
.
Prehabilitation is feasible in patients with rectal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and may minimize physical deterioration: Results from the REx trial.
Colorectal Dis
.
2019
;
21
:
548
62
40.
Martin
LR
Williams
SL
Haskard
KB
Dimatteo
MR
.
The challenge of patient adherence.
Ther Clin Risk Manag
.
2005
;
1
:
189
99
41.
Gillis
C
Gill
M
Marlett
N
MacKean
G
GermAnn
K
Gilmour
L
Nelson
G
Wasylak
T
Nguyen
S
Araujo
E
Zelinsky
S
Gramlich
L
.
Patients as partners in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery: A qualitative patient-led study.
BMJ Open
.
2017
;
7
:
e017002
42.
Kessels
RP
.
Patients’ memory for medical information.
J R Soc Med
.
2003
;
96
:
219
22
43.
Bellows
M
Burns
KK
Jackson
K
Surgeoner
B
Gallivan
J
.
Meaningful and effective patient engagement: What matters most to stakeholders.
Patient experience journal
.
2015
;
2
:
18
28
44.
Bandura
A
.
Self-efficacy: The exercise of control
.
1997
,
New York
:
W.H. Freeman and Company
45.
Lin
HS
Watts
JN
Peel
NM
Hubbard
RE
.
Frailty and post-operative outcomes in older surgical patients: A systematic review.
BMC Geriatr
.
2016
;
16
:
157
46.
van Stijn
MF
Korkic-Halilovic
I
Bakker
MS
van der Ploeg
T
van Leeuwen
PA
Houdijk
AP
.
Preoperative nutrition status and postoperative outcome in elderly general surgery patients: A systematic review.
JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr
.
2013
;
37
:
37
43
47.
Milder
DA
Pillinger
NL
Kam
PCA
.
The role of prehabilitation in frail surgical patients: A systematic review.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand
.
2018
;
62
:
1356
66
48.
Carli
F
Bousquet-Dion
G
Awasthi
R
Elsherbini
N
Liberman
S
Boutros
M
Stein
B
Charlebois
P
Ghitulescu
G
Morin
N
Jagoe
T
Scheede-Bergdahl
C
Minnella
EM
Fiore
JF
Jr.
.
Effect of multimodal prehabilitation vs postoperative rehabilitation on 30-day postoperative complications for frail patients undergoing resection of colorectal cancer: A randomized clinical trial.
JAMA Surg
.
2020
49.
Evans
WJ
.
Exercise strategies should be designed to increase muscle power.
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci
.
2000
;
55
:
M309
10
50.
Devries
MC
Phillips
SM
.
Supplemental protein in support of muscle mass and health: advantage whey.
J Food Sci
.
2015
;
80
(
Suppl 1
):
A8
A15