Article

Preoperative Pulmonary Rehabilitation Versus Chest Physical Therapy in Patients Undergoing Lung Cancer Resection: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC), Fortaleza, Brazil; Hospital de Messejana Dr. Carlos Alberto Studart Gomes, Secretaria de Saúde do Estado do Ceará (SESA), Ceará, Brazil.
Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation (Impact Factor: 2.18). 08/2012; DOI:10.1016/j.apmr.2012.08.206
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Morano MT, Araújo AS, Nascimento FB, da Silva GF, Mesquita R, Pinto JS, de Moraes Filho MO, Pereira ED. Preoperative pulmonary rehabilitation versus chest physical therapy in patients undergoing lung cancer resection: a pilot randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of 4 weeks of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) versus chest physical therapy (CPT) on the preoperative functional capacity and postoperative respiratory morbidity of patients undergoing lung cancer resection. DESIGN: Randomized single-blinded study. SETTING: A teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing lung cancer resection (N=24). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive PR (strength and endurance training) versus CPT (breathing exercises for lung expansion). Both groups received educational classes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Functional parameters assessed before and after 4 weeks of PR or CPT (phase 1), and pulmonary complications assessed after lung cancer resection (phase 2). RESULTS: Twelve patients were randomly assigned to the PR arm and 12 to the CPT arm. Three patients in the CPT arm were not submitted to lung resection because of inoperable cancer. During phase 1 evaluation, most functional parameters in the PR group improved from baseline to 1 month: forced vital capacity (FVC) (1.47L [1.27-2.33L] vs 1.71L [1.65-2.80L], respectively; P=.02); percentage of predicted FVC (FVC%; 62.5% [49%-71%] vs 76% [65%-79.7%], respectively; P<.05); 6-minute walk test (425.5±85.3m vs 475±86.5m, respectively; P<.05); maximal inspiratory pressure (90±45.9cmH(2)O vs 117.5±36.5cmH(2)O, respectively; P<.05); and maximal expiratory pressure (79.7±17.1cmH(2)O vs 92.9±21.4cmH(2)O, respectively; P<.05). During phase 2 evaluation, the PR group had a lower incidence of postoperative respiratory morbidity (P=.01), a shorter length of postoperative stay (12.2±3.6d vs 7.8±4.8d, respectively; P=.04), and required a chest tube for fewer days (7.4±2.6d vs 4.5±2.9d, respectively; P=.03) compared with the CPT arm. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that 4 weeks of PR before lung cancer resection improves preoperative functional capacity and decreases the postoperative respiratory morbidity.

0 0
 · 
0 Bookmarks
 · 
120 Views
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Advances in medical care have led to an increasing elderly population. Elderly individuals should be able to participate in society as long as possible. However, with an increasing age their adaptive capacity gradually decreases, specially before and after major life events (like hospitalization and surgery) making them vulnerable to reduced functioning and societal participation. Therapeutic exercise before and after surgery might augment the postoperative outcomes by improving functional status and reducing the complication and mortality rate. There is high quality evidence that preoperative exercise in patients scheduled for cardiovascular surgery is well tolerated and effective. Moreover, there is circumstantial evidence suggesting preoperative exercise for thoracic, abdominal and major joint replacement surgery is effective, provided that this is offered to the high-risk patients. Postoperative exercise should be initiated as soon as possible after surgery according to fast-track or enhanced recovery after surgery principles. The perioperative exercise training protocol known under the name 'Better in, Better out' could be implemented in clinical care for the vulnerable group of patients scheduled for major elective surgery who are at risk for prolonged hospitalization, complications and/or death. Future research should aim to include this at-risk group, evaluate perioperative high-intensity exercise interventions and conduct adequately powered trials.
    Current opinion in anaesthesiology 02/2014;
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Adult cancer survivors suffer an extremely diverse and complex set of impairments, affecting virtually every organ system. Both physical and psychological impairments may contribute to a decreased health-related quality of life and should be identified throughout the care continuum. Recent evidence suggests that more cancer survivors have a reduced health-related quality of life as a result of physical impairments than due to psychological ones. Research has also demonstrated that the majority of cancer survivors will have significant impairments and that these often go undetected and/or untreated, and consequently may result in disability. Furthermore, physical disability is a leading cause of distress in this population. The scientific literature has shown that rehabilitation improves pain, function, and quality of life in cancer survivors. In fact, rehabilitation efforts can ameliorate physical (including cognitive) impairments at every stage along the course of treatment. This includes prehabilitation before cancer treatment commences and multimodal interdisciplinary rehabilitation during and after acute cancer treatment. Rehabilitation appears to be cost-effective and may reduce both direct and indirect health care costs, thereby reducing the enormous financial burden of cancer. Therefore, it is critical that survivors are screened for both psychological and physical impairments and then referred appropriately to trained rehabilitation health care professionals. This review suggests an impairment-driven cancer rehabilitation model that includes screening and treating impairments all along the care continuum in order to minimize disability and maximize quality of life. CA Cancer J Clin 2013. © 2013 American Cancer Society.
    CA A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 07/2013; · 153.46 Impact Factor