The role of rehabilitation across the continuum of liver disease from cirrhosis to transplantation and beyond: A narrative review.
Laura Malmut, Sarah Eickmeyer, Leslie Rydberg and 3 others
PMID 40285684WHAT IT FOUND
Rehabilitation is safe and improves function across liver disease stages.
PTs focus on early mobility and endurance. OTs manage ADLs and tremor. SLPs address dysphagia and cognitive effects of encephalopathy. Evidence supports exercise for frailty, but long-term outcome data remain sparse.
Key findings
01Frailty and sarcopenia are potentially modifiable with exercise and nutritional interventions in patients with chronic liver disease.
02Early mobility after liver transplantation is safe and associated with improved functional outcomes, reduced mechanical ventilation duration, and better quality of life.
03Interdisciplinary rehabilitation roles are defined: PTs for mobility/endurance, OTs for ADLs/tremor/energy conservation, and SLPs for dysphagia and cognitive deficits from hepatic encephalopathy.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The review is narrative, not systematic, so it lacks a formal risk of bias assessment or comprehensive search strategy. Evidence for many specific interventions is drawn from small pilot studies, retrospective chart reviews, or heterogeneous trials. Long-term outcome data after liver transplantation are sparse, and the quality of studies evaluating inpatient rehabilitation outcomes is generally poor. The review does not provide specific dosage or intensity guidelines for rehabilitation interventions, limiting direct applicability to treatment planning.
Declared interests
The authors have no disclosures.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret this review as providing a standardized rehabilitation protocol or definitive efficacy evidence for specific interventions. The underlying studies are often small, retrospective, or pilot trials with heterogeneous outcomes, so clinical decisions must be tailored to individual patient stability and local resources rather than applied uniformly.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →