Life participation requiring physical activity and physical function is a key patient-reported outcome for people receiving peritoneal dialysis (PD). Clinician guidance is required from multidisciplinary sources regarding exercise and activity advice to address the specific needs of this group. From August 2020 through to June 2021, the Global Renal Exercise Network and the International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis reviewed the published literature and international clinical experience to develop a set of clinical practice points. A set of questions relevant to physical activity and exercise were developed from the perspective of a person receiving PD and were the basis for the practice point development. The GRADE framework was used to evaluate the quality of evidence and to guide clinical practice points. The review of the literature found sparse quality evidence, and thus the clinical practice points are generally based on the expert consensus of people receiving PD, PD exercise expert clinicians and experienced PD exercise researchers. Clinical practice points address timing of exercise and activity (post-catheter insertion, peritoneal space empty or full), the uptake of specific activities (work, sex, swimming, core exercise), potential adverse outcomes related to activity and exercise (exit site care, perspiration, cardiovascular compromise, fatigue, intra-abdominal pressure), the effect of exercise and activity on conditions of interest (mental health, obesity, frailty, low fitness) and exercise nutrition.

Background: Patients receiving dialysis have reduced physical function, which is associated with unfavorable clinical outcomes and decreased quality of life. The authors aimed to identify and explore modifiable physical factors associated with physical function for patients receiving dialysis. Methods: Searches were performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Ovid Emcare, and The Cochrane Library in October 2018. Etiological studies involving dialysis populations that report association or predictive statistics between a modifiable physical factor and physical function were eligible for inclusion. Predictor variables were (1) modifiable via exercise and (2) considered an impairment in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Results: Of 5384 titles screened, 23 studies were included. Thirteen studies focused on physical activity levels and muscle strength and the relationship with physical function while 2 studies investigated sedentary behavior. Twenty-one studies focused on hemodialysis populations. Studies related to physical activity levels displayed a moderately strong relationship with physical function, whereas muscle strength displayed a predominantly weak to moderate relationship. Conclusions: Physical activity levels, sedentary behavior levels, and muscle strength are related to physical function status for patients receiving dialysis. There is a need for robust longitudinal data to confirm the results of this investigation and for more focus on populations receiving peritoneal dialysis.

No abstract

Context: Abdominal musculature underpins core stability, which can allow for optimal performance in many activities of daily living (eg, walking and rising from a chair). Therefore, assessment of the abdominal muscles poses as an important consideration for clinicians in order to identify people at risk of injury or functional decline. Objective: This study aimed to build on the limited amount of knowledge surrounding abdominal muscle strength assessments by investigating the validity and reliability of hand-held dynamometry (HHD) for the assessment of isometric abdominal flexion strength. Study Design and Participants: Comparative analysis for validity and test–retest reliability was employed on a cohort of apparently healthy individuals. HHD was compared with the criterion, isokinetic dynamometry, through an isometric contraction of trunk flexion on both instruments. Hand-held dynamometry assessments only were performed on a subsequent day for reliability analysis. The peak values for all assessments were recorded. Results: A total of 35 participants were recruited from the University of South Australia and the general public. Comparative analysis between the HHD and isokinetic dynamometer showed good agreement (intraclass correlation coefficients = .82), with the Bland–Altman plots confirming no proportional bias. Reliability analysis for the HHD reported good consistency (intraclass correlation coefficients = .87). Conclusion: HHD together with the participant setup (supine, trunk flexed, and supported at 25° with the legs horizontal and remaining unfixed) is a valid and reliable tool to assess isometric abdominal flexion strength.

No abstract