Prehabilitation in Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery Lobectomy for Lung Cancer: Current Situation and Future Perspectives
Zi-Jia Liu,Yue-Lun Zhang,Yu-Guang Huang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd-20-1930
2020-01-01
Journal of Thoracic Disease
Abstract:J Thorac Dis 2020;12(8):4578-4580 | http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd-20-1930 We thank Prof. Giles et al. from Canada for their thoughtful comments and suggestions about our recent article (1). Our group published a study in Anesth Analg, reporting that a 2-week, home-based, multimodal prehabilitation strategy could produce clinically relevant improvements of perioperative functional capacity assessed via the 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) in patients undergoing videoassisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) lobectomy for lung cancer (2). In this randomized controlled study, we enrolled 73 patients (37 in the prehabilitation group and 36 in the control group). The simple home-based, multimodal prehabilitation program includes aerobic and resistance exercises, respiratory training, nutrition counseling with whey protein supplementation, and psychological guidance utilizing a pictured instruction booklet, completion diaries, and regular visits to encourage adherence. Many studies have been published regarding preoperative exercise for lung cancer. However, though positive conclusions are often reported, heterogeneity is extremely obvious from differences in interventions, and population and outcome measurements, especially preoperative training interventions (3). All exercise modes in the published literature focus mainly on aerobic exercise with or without resistance exercise and inspiratory muscle training (IMT) (4-12). However, our study contributed most to the innovation of patient-centered multimodal prehabilitation methods for patients undergoing VATS lobectomy by including respiratory training, nutritional supplements, and psychological optimization. Based on our limited clinical practice experience, we also made improvements to exercise duration, modality, and place compared with other forms of preoperative training associated with pulmonary surgery. Instead of advocating fixed forms of exercise, our patients could choose any form of aerobic exercise at their discretion with restrained frequencies, durations, and intensities to improve acceptance (4-8,11,12). Considering that the urge to proceed with surgery requires shorter exercise interventions, the duration of prehabilitation was simplified to approximately 2 weeks, compared with 4–8 weeks in most published studies (4,8-11). We found that it was also more convenient for patients to perform the prehabilitation program at home under various types of guidance including telephone follow-up (8). We therefore tried to establish a more flexible, feasible, and economical way of benefitting the clinical wide-range application of prehabilitation programs that may occur in the near future. As noted by Giles et al., both intervention and control groups in our analysis were primarily fit and young (mean, 56 years old), with baseline pulmonary functions within normal levels (FEV1 and FVC >90% predicted, FEV1/ FVC >70%), although the inclusion criteria were not strictly restricted to age (adult patients <70 years old) or preoperative pulmonary function. Giles et al. commented that these factors might limit the generalizability and practical significance of this study, which we also mentioned in our publication. However, we noted a rising trend of lung cancer incidence in females and in the younger population in China (13,14), and the fact that increasing numbers of Letter to the Editor