4.3 Article

Randomized Controlled Study to Evaluate the Efficacy of a Preoperative Respiratory Rehabilitation Program to Prevent Postoperative Pulmonary Complications after Esophagectomy

Journal

DIGESTIVE SURGERY
Volume 32, Issue 5, Pages 331-337

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000434758

Keywords

Esophageal cancer; Rehabilitation; Clavien-Dindo classification; Utrecht pneumonia scoring system; Pulmonary complications

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Aims: Patients with postoperative pulmonary complications after esophagectomy often have increased mortality. The purpose of the study was to examine the efficacy of preventing postoperative pulmonary complications by an intensive preoperative respiratory rehabilitation (PR) program for esophageal cancer patients. Methods: This study was a prospective randomized controlled study. Thirty patients in the PR group and 30 patients in the no preoperative respiratory rehabilitation (NPR) group were included. The PR group received preoperative rehabilitation for more than 7 days, while the NPR group did not receive any preoperative rehabilitation. All patients underwent postoperative rehabilitation from the first postoperative day. The postoperative pulmonary complications were evaluated using the Clavien-Dindo classification (CDC) and the Utrecht Pneumonia Scoring System (UPSS). Results: The CDC grade in the PR group was significantly lower than that in the NPR group (p = 0.014). The UPSS score in the PR group was significantly lower than that in the NPR group at postoperative day 1 (p = 0.031). In the multivariate analysis, NPR was an independent risk factor for postoperative pulmonary complications greater than CDC grade II (OR: 3.99, 95% CI: 1.28-12.4, p = 0.017). Conclusions: This study showed that the intensive PR program was capable of reducing the postoperative pulmonary complications in esophageal cancer patients. (C) 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available