IntroductionThis study examines patient reported outcome measures of women undergoing hyperbaric oxygen treatment (HBOT) after breast-conserving therapy.MethodIncluded were 57 women treated with HBOT for late radiation-induced tissue toxicity (LRITT) referred in the period January 2014-December 2015. HBOT consisted of (on average) 47 sessions. In total, 80 min of 100 % O2 was administered under increased pressure of 2.4 ATA. Quality of life was assessed before and after treatment using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-BR23, and a NRS pain score.ResultsFifty-seven women were available for evaluation before and after treatment. Before HBOT, patients had severe complaints of pain in the arm/shoulder (46 %), swollen arm/hand (14 %), difficulty to raise arm or move it sideways (45 %), pain in the area of the affected breast (67 %), swollen area of the affected breast (45 %), oversensitivity of the affected breast (54 %), and skin problems on/in the area of the affected breast (32 %); post HBOT, severe complaints were still experienced in 17, 7, 22, 15, 13, 15, and 11 % of the women, respectively. Differences were all significant. The NRS pain score improved at least 1 point (range 0–10) in 81 % of the patients (p < 0.05).ConclusionIn these breast cancer patients treated with HBOT for LRITT, the patient-reported outcomes were positive and improvements were observed. HBOT was a well-tolerated treatment for LRITT and its side-effects were both minimal and reversible.
Diabetic foot ulcers are a common complication of diabetes, which affects 25% of patients and may ultimately lead to amputation of affected limbs. Research suggests hyperbaric oxygen therapy improves healing of these ulcers. However, this has not been reflected in previous reviews, possibly because they did not differentiate between patients with and without peripheral arterial occlusive disease. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of published literature in the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases on nonischemic diabetic foot ulcers with outcome measures including complete ulcer healing, amputation rate (major and minor), and mortality. Seven studies were included, of which two were randomized clinical trials. Two studies found no difference in major amputation rate, whereas one large retrospective study found 2% more major amputations in the hyperbaric oxygen group. However, this study did not correct for baseline differences. Two studies showed no significant difference in minor amputation rate. Five studies reporting on complete wound healing showed no significant differences. In conclusion, the current evidence suggests that hyperbaric oxygen therapy does not accelerate wound healing and does not prevent major or minor amputations in patients with a diabetic foot ulcer without peripheral arterial occlusive disease. Based on the available evidence, routine clinical use of this therapy cannot be recommended. However, the available research for this specific subgroup of patients is scarce, and physicians should counsel patients on expected risks and benefits. Additional research, focusing especially on patient selection criteria, is needed to better identify patients that might profit from this therapy modality.
The present article evaluates the results of the treatment with adjuvant hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) of patients with nonhealing, chronic wounds. In the period 2013 to 2016, 248 patients were referred from various hospitals because of chronic wounds that were recalcitrant in healing despite standard wound care as described in national and international guidelines. After inclusion, all patients were treated with HBOT and subjected to a weekly standard wound care treatment. During each HBOT session, 100% O2 was administered for 75 minutes under increased pressure of 2.4 ATA. Wounds and quality of life were assessed before and after the total treatment period. A total of 248 patients have been evaluated. Diabetic foot ulcers were present in 134 patients, the remainder (114 patients) showed a variety of wound locations and etiologies. The number of HBOT treatments amounted to an average of 48 (range 20‐68) sessions. Before referral to our clinic, 31% of all wounds had existed for at least 18 months (72 patients). After HBOT, 81% of all wounds were near complete healing or completely healed, in 13% of the cases the wound was stable, and in 2% minor or major amputation had to be carried out. The mean treatment time for wounds pre‐existing fewer than 6 weeks (“early referrals”) was 67 days, and 119 days for wounds pre‐existing more than 18 months (“late referrals”). A majority of the patients in our study referred with nonhealing wounds clinically improved when adjuvant HBOT was added to standard wound care protocols. No differences in success rate were seen between diabetic and nondiabetic wounds. It showed that HBOT is a well‐tolerated treatment.
The diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) as a common complication of diabetes. Even with adequate treatment, up to 35% of these ulcers do not heal. This is due to the effect of aging, repeated ischemia-reperfusion (IR) injury, bacterial colonisation of the wound and chronic hypoxia. All wound-healing processes are highly dependent on oxygen, so hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) can be employed to improve wound healing and correct the four pathophysiological factors for chronic wounds. It is, in fact, internationally recognised as a treatment option for non-healing DFUs. Several trials and systematic reviews have been performed on its efficacy, which show a positive trend towards increased wound healing and reduced amputation risk. Some controversy exists due to contradictory results in these studies, which may be due to grouping patients with and without peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD) together. Side effects are usually mild and transient, and the treatment is considered safe.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.