O083 The impact of prehabilitation on outcomes in frail, older adult patients undergoing major abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Prehabilitation comprises multidisciplinary preoperative interventions including exercise, nutritional optimisation and psychological preparation aimed at improving surgical outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of prehabilitation on postoperative outcomes in frail, older adult patients undergoing abdominal surgery. Methods Embase, Medline, CINAHAL and Cochrane databases were searched from 2010 to 2022 for prospective randomised clinical trials (RCT) and observational studies evaluating unimodal (exercise) or multimodal prehabilitation programmes. The primary endpoint was the development of severe postoperative complications. Secondary endpoints, among others, included length of hospital stay. The analysis was performed using RevMan v5.4 software. Results Sixteen studies (6 RCT, 10 observational) reporting on 3339 patients (1406 prehabilitation group, 1933 control group) were included. The median (interquartile range) age was 74.0 (71.0–78.4) years. Ten studies reported on patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Of the remaining studies, two investigated prehabilitation in patients undergoing mixed gastrointestinal surgeries, two in gastric and oesophageal surgery, and two in hepatobiliary surgery. Prehabilitation was multimodal in the majority of studies and was unimodal in one study. Ten studies addressed severe complications and a meta-analysis revealed a decline in their occurrence by up to 44% (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.82). Meta-analysis of nine studies showed a reduction in hospital stay (WMD -1.07, -1.60 to -0.53). Conclusion Given the significant impact on severe complications and tendency to shorten length of stay, prehabilitation should be encouraged in routine practice in frail, older adult patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".