Surgery aims to improve a patient’s medical condition. However, surgery is a major life event with the risk of negative consequences, like peri- and postoperative complications, prolonged hospitalization and delayed recovery of physical functioning. One of the major common side effects, functional decline, before (in the “waiting” period), during and after hospitalization is impressive, especially in frail people. Preoperative screening aims to identify frail, highrisk patients at an early stage, and advice these high-risk patients to start supervised preoperative home-based exercise training (prehabilitation) as soon as possible. Depending on the health status of the patient and his/her outcomes during the screening and the type of surgery, prehabilitation should focus on respiratory, cardiovascular and/or musculoskeletal parameters to prepare the patient for surgery. By improving preoperative physical fitness, a patient is able to better with stand the impact of major surgery and this will lead to a both reduced risk of negative side effects and better short term outcomes as a result. Besides prehabilitation hospital culture and infrastructure should be inherently activating so that patients stay as active as can be, socially, mentally and physically. In the first part of this chapter the concept of prehabilitation and different parameters that should be trained will be described. The second part focuses on the “Better in, Better out” (BiBo™) strategy, which aims to optimize patient’s pre-, peri- and postoperative physical fitness. Prehabilitation should comprise “shared decisions” between patient and physical therapist regarding experience and evidence based best options for rehabilitation goals, needs, and potential of the individual patient and his/her (in) formal support-system. Next, a case will describe the preoperative care pathway. This chapter will close with conclusions about how moving people before and after surgery will improve their outcomes.
AIM: To synthesize the evidence about the characteristics (frequency, intensity, time, type) and effects of physical rehabilitation interventions on functional recovery and performance in daily functioning in children and young people with acquired brain injury (ABI), including traumatic brain injuries (TBI) and non-TBI, during the subacute rehabilitation phase.METHOD: Using scoping review methodology, a systematic literature search was performed using four databases. Articles were screened by title and abstract and data from eligible studies were extracted for synthesis.RESULTS: Nine of 3009 studies were included. The results demonstrated a variety of intervention characteristics: frequency varied between 1 and 7 days per week; time of intervention varied between 25 minutes and 6 hours a day; intervention types were specified in seven studies; and none of the included studies reported details of intensity of intervention. All studies reported positive results on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: Children and Youth (ICF-CY) levels of body function and activities after the intervention period, with study designs of included studies being cohort studies without concurrent controls (n=7) or case reports (n=2).INTERPRETATION: Inconsistency in results hampers generalizability to guide clinical practice. Physical interventions during subacute rehabilitation have potential to improve functional recovery with intervention characteristics as an important factor influencing its effectiveness. Future well-designed studies are indicated to gain knowledge and optimize rehabilitation practice in paediatric ABI and high-quality research including outcomes across all ICF-CY domains is needed.
Objective. Clinicians may use implicit or explicit motor learning approaches to facilitatemotor learning of patients with stroke. Implicit motor learning approaches have shown promising results in healthy populations. The purpose of this study was to assess whether an implicit motor learning walking intervention is more effective compared with an explicit motor learning walking intervention delivered at home regarding walking speed in people after stroke in the chronic phase of recovery. Methods. This randomized, controlled, single-blind trial was conducted in the home environment. The 79 participants, who were in the chronic phase after stroke (age = 66.4 [SD = 11.0] years; time poststroke = 70.1 [SD = 64.3] months; walking speed = 0.7 [SD = 0.3] m/s; Berg Balance Scale score = 44.5 [SD = 9.5]), were randomly assigned to an implicit (n = 38) or explicit (n = 41) group. Analogy learning was used as the implicit motor learning walking intervention, whereas the explicit motor learning walking intervention consisted of detailed verbal instructions. Both groups received 9 training sessions (30 minutes each), for a period of 3 weeks, targeted at improving quality of walking. The primary outcome was walking speed measured by the 10-MeterWalk Test at a comfortable walking pace. Outcomes were assessed at baseline, immediately after intervention, and 1 month postintervention. Results. No statistically or clinically relevant differences between groups were obtained postintervention (between-group difference was estimated at 0.02 m/s [95% CI = −0.04 to 0.08] and at follow-up (between-group difference estimated at −0.02 m/s [95% CI = −0.09 to 0.05]). Conclusion. Implicit motor learning was not superior to explicit motor learning to improve walking speed in people after stroke in the chronic phase of recovery. Impact. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the effects of implicit compared with explicit motor learning on a functional task in people after stroke. Results indicate that physical therapists can use (tailored) implicit and explicit motor learning strategies to improve walking speed in people after stroke who are in the chronic phase of recovery.
