Multimodal prehabilitation in oncogynecology – a case study

Česká verze

Authors: P. Sládková ^1-3; M. Tichá ^1,2; K. Kotrbová ¹; D. Ševčíková ¹; Z. Vlastníková ¹; A. Šályová ¹; M. Švábenická ⁴; T. Brtnický ⁵
Authors place of work: Oddělení fyziatrie a léčebné rehabilitace, FN Bulovka, Praha ¹; Fakulta biomedicínského inženýrství, ČVUT, Kladno ²; Klinika adiktologie 1. LF UK a VFN v Praze ³; Klinika rehabilitačního lékařství 1. LF UK a VFN v Praze ⁴; Gynekologicko-porodnická klinika 1. LF UK a FN Bulovka, Praha ⁵
Published in the journal: Klin Onkol 2025; 38(2): 144-146
Category: Kazuistiky
doi: https://doi.org/10.48095/ccko2025144

Summary

Background: Multimodal prehabilitation in oncogynecology is based on close collaboration between oncologists, oncogynecologists and the prehabilitation team. The team includes rehabilitation physicians, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, a nutritional therapist and a clinical psychologist. The aim is to achieve the maximum possible psychosensomotor potential before the planned radical surgery. Case: A 66-year-old female patient diagnosed with high-grade serous ovarial carcinoma, stage IIIC according to International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) classification, after completion of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, was indicated for 21 days of inpatient prehabilitation in a 4/7 regimen. Prehabilitation was dominated by individual physiotherapy and occupational therapy with a frequency of twice a day for 20–30 minutes. Therapeutic programs containing elements of cardiorespiratory training, relaxation methods, muscular and cognitive training were applied. The therapy was supplemented with elements of telerehabilitation in the home environment. Conclusion: The evaluation of the applied functional tests demonstrates a significant improvement in the overall physical condition, respiratory parameters and quality of life of the patient described.

Keywords:

disability – Quality of life – oncogynecology – prehabilitation

Zdroje

1. Lednický Š, Cibula D, Slabá Š. Prehabilitace. Ceska Gynekol 2020; 85 (5): 352–356.

2. Leonardi M, Bickenbach J, Ustun TB et al. Definition of disability: what is in a name? Lancet 2006; 368 (9543): 1219–1221. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736 (06) 69498-1.

3. Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed „Up & Go“: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 1991; 39 (2): 142–148. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1991.tb01616.x.

4. Ejupi A, Brodie M, Gschwind YJ et al. Kinect-based five-times-sit-to-stand test for clinical and in-home assessment of fall risk in older people. Gerontology 2016; 62 (1): 118–124. doi: 10.1159/000381804.

5. Sternäng O, Reynolds CA, Finkel D et al. Factors associated with grip strength decline in older adults. Age Ageing 2015; 44 (2): 269–274. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afu170.

6. Hollá M, Bartoš A. Krátké testy kognitivních funkcí do ordinace praktického lékaře. Prakt Lék 2019; 99 (5): 191–196.

7. Kopecek M, Stepankova H, Lukavsky J et al. Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA): normative data for old and very old Czech adults. Appl Neuropsychol Adult 2017; 24 (1): 23–29. doi: 10.1080/23279095.2015.1065261.

8. Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Soc Behav 1983; 24 (4): 385–396.

9. Sládková P, Svěcená K, Rodová Z et al. Dotazník WHODAS 2.0 a možnosti jeho využití v neurorehabilitaci – pilotní studie. Rehabilitacia 2024; 61 (2): 84–93. doi: 10.61983/lcrh.v61i2.51.

10. Williams N. The Borg rating of perceived exertion (RPE) scale. Occupat Med 2017; 67 (5): 404–405. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqx063.

11. Campbell KL, Winters-Stone KM, Wiskemann J et al. Exercise guidelines for cancer survivors. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2019; 51 (11): 2375–2390. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000002116.

12. Srp M. Respirační fyzioterapie v neurologii. 2022 [online]. Dostupné z: https: //dspace.cuni.cz/handle/20.500. 11956/172132.

13. Švábenická M, Sládková P. Feldenkraisova metoda v ergoterapii. 2024 [online]. Dostupné z: https: //ergoterapie.cz/casopis-ergoterapie-teorie-a-praxe-1-2024/.