Surgical preparation tested the support around a plan

A November 12, 2025 trial compared personalized surgical preparation with a printed program. Fifty-eight patients were randomized; 54 completed. Moderate-to-severe complications occurred in four coached participants and eleven comparison participants, each group containing 27 completers. ^[1]

NIH’s subsequent account describes what personalization added: twice-weekly remote conversations, adjustments to abilities and progress, and a platform for exercises, meals and concerns. Both programs addressed movement, nutrition, stress and cognition. The comparison thus involved the support around a plan, not simply whether patients received preparation. ^[2]

The single-center paper included varied operations and no untreated group. Its authors called for larger trials. It cannot establish which component produced the difference or the minimum coaching needed for a scalable service. ^[1]

A separate January 2026 systematic review shows why program design needs scrutiny. Across 140 oncologic-surgery studies, content and duration varied considerably. Many reports provided little rationale for specific exercise intensity or other details, making comparison and replication harder. ^[3]

The review distinguishes fitness gains, which help explain a pathway, from demonstrated reductions in surgical complications. It supports examining program content and outcomes before assuming every service called prehabilitation has equivalent evidence. ^[3]

About this item: Retrospective report. No first-hand reporting or independent testing is claimed. Corrections policy.