Simple Summary
Preoperative and postoperative programs that incorporate exercise, nutritional support, and/or psychological care, collectively known as (p)rehabilitation, have demonstrated efficacy in improving cancer patient outcomes. Access to these programs, however, remains limited. Technology-enabled (p)rehabilitation offers a potential solution to enhance equity and continuity of care. This review evaluated the impact of technology-enabled (p)rehabilitation on perioperative and patient-reported outcomes in individuals undergoing thoracic and/or abdominopelvic cancer surgery. Seventeen randomised controlled trials, involving 1690 participants, were analysed. Findings suggest that technology-enabled (p)rehabilitation significantly reduces hospital length of stay, and improves patient reported outcomes such as pain, depression, fatigue, and distress compared with control groups. Despite these encouraging results, the evidence is limited by small sample sizes and methodological variability. Large-scale clinical trials are needed to confirm efficacy and inform implementation strategies.
Abstract
Background/Objectives: (P)rehabilitation, comprising structured exercise, nutritional optimisation, and/or psychological support delivered pre- or postoperatively, has demonstrated efficacy in improving outcomes across the cancer care continuum. However, access remains limited. Technology-enabled (p)rehabilitation offers a novel solution with the potential to enhance equity and continuity of care. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of technology-enabled (p)rehabilitation on perioperative and patient-reported outcomes among individuals undergoing thoracic and/or abdominopelvic cancer surgery. Methods: Six databases were search from inception to October 2024. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing technology-enabled (p)rehabilitation with usual care, placebo, or non-technology-based interventions in adults undergoing thoracic and/or abdominopelvic cancer surgery. Outcomes included postoperative complications, hospital readmissions, hospital length of stay (LOS), quality of life (QoL), pain, anxiety, depression, fatigue, distress, and satisfaction. Higher scores indicated improved QoL or worse symptom severity. Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane tool, and evidence strength was determined using GRADE methodology. Relative risks (RR) and mean differences (MD) were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. Results: Seventeen RCTs (18 publications, n = 1690) were included. Trials most commonly evaluated application-based platforms (n = 8) and the majority exhibited some risk of bias. Technology-enabled (p)rehabilitation was associated with a significant reduction in LOS (MD = 1.33 days; 95% CI: 0.59–2.07; seven trials), and improvements in pain (MD = 6.12; 95% CI: 3.40–8.84; four trials), depression (MD = 2.82; 95% CI: 0.65–4.99; five trials), fatigue (MD = 10.10; 95% CI: 6.97–13.23; three trials) and distress (MD = 1.23; 95% CI: 0.30–2.16; single trial) compared with controls. Conclusions: Technology-enabled (p)rehabilitation shows promise in reducing LOS and improving selected patient-reported outcomes following thoracic and abdominopelvic cancer surgery. Although evidence is limited due to the small number of studies, modest sample sizes, methodological heterogeneity, and intervention variability, the overall findings justify further investigation. Large-scale, adequately powered clinical trials are required to confirm efficacy and guide clinical effectiveness and implementation studies.