A randomized prospective trial of hyperbaric oxygen in a referral burn center population. Evaluating the role of alternative therapy in burn wound management: randomized trial comparing moist exposed burn ointment with conventional methods in the management of patients with second-degree burns. Cognitive therapy in the treatment of patients with resistant burning mouth syndrome: a controlled study. Treatment of second degree facial burns with allografts--preliminary results. Double-blind randomized phase II study of hyperbaric oxygen in patients with radiation-induced brachial plexopathy. Management of partial thickness facial burns (comparison of topical antibiotics and bio-engineered skin substitutes). Safety and efficacy of a new synthetic burn dressing: a multicenter study. Adjunctive systemic hyperbaric oxygen therapy in treatment of severe prevalently ischemic diabetic foot ulcer. A randomized study. Treatment of exercise-induced muscle injury via hyperbaric oxygen therapy.
Various studies of the effect of hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) in a wide variety of disease entities have been carried out. In the treatment of burns, animal and human studies have yielded somewhat contradictory results. Controlled studies in humans are limited. A randomized study on the effect of HBO was conducted involving 125 burn patients admitted within 24 hours of injury who were matched by age, burn size, and presence or absence of inhalation injury. Patients in the treatment arm received oxygen at two atmospheres of pressure for 90 minutes twice a day for a minimum of 10 treatments and a maximum of one treatment per total body surface per cent burn. The control group was treated in a similar fashion, except for the absence of HBO. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups for the outcome measures of mortality, number of operations, and length of stay for the survivors. In this large clinical trial, we were unable to demonstrate any significant benefit to burn patients from the use of HBO. Moist exposed burn ointment (MEBO), from China, has been said to revolutionize burn management.
                Our study was conducted to compare MEBO with conventional management (C) with respect to the rate of wound healing, antibacterial and analgesic effect, and hospital costs.
                This is a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial conducted between 1 March 1997 and 24 October 1998.
                The trial was conducted in a specialized burn facility located in a tertiary referral hospital in a developed and industrialized island-state in Southeast Asia.
                We randomly assigned 115 consecutive patients between the ages of 12 and 80 who had partial-thickness thermal burns covering less than 40% of body surface area (BSA) to receive either MEBO or C. Fifty-seven patients were assigned to MEBO and 58 patients to C. The latter group received twice-daily dressing changes; MEBO patients received MEBO every 4 hours.
                Patients were hospitalized until 75% BSA had healed. BSA was determined by visual inspection and charted on Lund and Browder charts regularly. Wound healing rate, bacterial infection rate, pain score, and hospitalization costs were recorded.
                The median time to 75% healing was 17.0 and 20.0 days with MEBO and C, respectively (HR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.41-1.11, P =.11), suggesting similar efficacy between the 2 modalities. Bacterial infection rates were similar between the 2 groups (HR = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.59-2.03, P =.76). MEBO imparted a greater analgesic effect in the first 5 days of therapy and reduced hospital costs by 8%.
                MEBO is as effective as conventional management but is not the panacea for all burn wounds. The use of MEBO eases the management of face and neck burns and facilitates early institution of occupational therapy in hand burns. It confers better pain relief such that fewer opiates are used during the first 5 days after burn injury. The effect of cognitive therapy (CT) on resistant burning mouth syndrome (BMS) was studied. Thirty patients with resistant BMS after odontological and medical treatment were randomly divided into two equal groups; a therapy group (TG) was treated with CT and an attention/placebo group (APG) served as a control group. The intensity of BMS, which was estimated by the use of a visual analogue scale, was significantly reduced in the TG directly after CT was completed and was further reduced in a 6-month follow-up. The APG did not show any decrease in intensity of BMS. The results of this study indicate that, in some cases, resistant BMS probably is of psychological origin. Facial burns are very common and have significant clinical impact. However, the treatment regimen for superficial to deep facial burns is not well defined. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of cadaver skin grafting in deep partial thickness facial burns in comparison to standard care. In a prospective open study design severely injured patients with superficial and deep partial thickness burns were randomized into the group receiving open treatment with silversulfadiazine (standard n=5) or into the group receiving early superficial debridement followed by coverage with glycerolized cadaver skin (n=5). The outcome measures were time and quality of wound healing, and incidence of hypertrophic scarring at 3 and 6 months post burn. There were no significant differences in demographics between groups. In the group treated with the allogenic material time to reepithelialization was 10.5 days, while it was 12.4 days in the silversulfadiazine group (p<0.05). Scar quality was found to be significantly improved in the allogenic treatment group. Three and 6 months postburn there were no patients with significant hypertrophic scarring in the allogenic group while there were two patients who developed hypertrophic scars in the silversulfadiazine group (p<0.05). In this study, we demonstrated that glyzerolized cadaver allograft skin represents a superior biological dressing for shallow and deep partial thickness facial burns. This is in concordance with other reports on scalds. It would be worthwhile to perform more clinical studies with a larger number of patients to further evaluate the effect and function of allogenic skin for facial burns. Radiation-induced brachial plexopathy (RIBP) is an untreatable complication of curative radiotherapy for early breast cancer, characterized by chronic neuropathic pain and limb paralysis. Hyperbaric oxygen (HBO2) therapy is known to promote healing of tissue rendered ischaemic by radiotherapy, but is untested in RIBP.
                Thirty four eligible research volunteers suffering from RIBP were randomized to HBO2 or control group. The HBO2 group breathed 100% oxygen for 100 min in a multiplace hyperbaric chamber on 30 occasions over a period of 6 weeks. The control group accompanied the HBO2 group and breathed a gas mixture equivalent to breathing 100% oxygen at surface pressure. All volunteers and investigators, except the operators of the hyperbaric chamber and the trial statistician, were blind to treatment assignments. The warm sensory threshold, which measures the function of small sensory fibres, was selected as the primary endpoint.
                Pre-treatment neurophysiological tests were grossly abnormal in the affected hand compared to the unaffected hand in both HBO2 and control groups, as expected, but no statistically significant differences were noted in either group at any time up to 12 months post-treatment. However, normalization of the warm sensory threshold in two of the HBO2 group was reliably recorded. Two cases with marked chronic arm lymphoedema reported major and persistent improvements in arm volume for at least 12 months after treatment with HBO2. IINTERPRETATION: There is no reliable evidence to support the hypothesis that HBO2 therapy slows or reverses RIBP in a substantial proportion of affected individuals, although improvements in warm sensory threshold offer some suggestion of therapeutic effect. Improvement in long-standing arm lymphoedema was not anticipated, and justifies further investigation. This study compared the effect of standard topical antibiotic management versus a biological skin substitute wound closure for mid-partial thickness burns of the face. Adult patients with mid-dermal facial burns produced by flash flames or flame exposure were studied using a randomized prospective study design. Total daily burn care time, pain (0-10 scale) and healing time were monitored. Immediately after partial thickness debridement, the entire face burn, including ears, was closed with a bioengineered skin substitute coated with fibronectin (TransCyte) or treated by the open technique using bacitracin ointment applied 2-3 times daily. 21 patients were studied, with 10 patients in the skin substitute group. We found a significant decrease in wound care time 0.35 +/- 0.1 versus 1.9 +/- 0.5 h, decrease in pain of 2 +/- 1 versus 4 +/- 2 and re-epithelialization time 7 +/- 2 versus 13 +/- 4 days in the skin substitute group compared to topical antibiotics. We can conclude that a bioengineered skin substitute significantly improves the management and healing rate of partial thickness facial burns, compared to the standard open topical ointment technique. A three-tiered, multicenter study evaluated the safety and efficacy of a new synthetic dressing for burn injuries. The first tier compared use of the test dressing with use of a conventional topical chemotherapeutic agent; the test dressing afforded greater patient comfort, equivalent control of bacterial growth, less frequent dressing change, and possibly faster reepithelialization. Drawbacks included difficulty of application, poor adherence during the first 24 hours after injury, frequent necessity to repair cracks and fissures, and inability to easily monitor burn wounds for bacterial growth. Subsequent tiers were noncomparative but included patients with more severe injuries. The test dressing may be useful in treating superficial and moderate second-degree burns of less than 20% of the total body surface area and possibly in treating iatrogenic "burn" wounds such as donor sites. Its use on third-degree burns is not recommended. To evaluate the effectiveness of systemic hyperbaric oxygen therapy (s HBOT) in addition to a comprehensive protocol in decreasing major amputation rate in diabetic patients hospitalized for severe foot ulcer.
                From August 1993 to August 1995, 70 diabetic subjects were consecutively admitted into our diabetologic unit for foot ulcers. All the subjects underwent our diagnostic-therapeutic protocol and were randomized to undergo s-HBOT. Two subjects, one in the arm of the treated group and one in the arm of nontreated group, did not complete the protocol and were therefore excluded from the analysis of the results. Finally, 35 subjects received s-HBOT and another 33 did not.
                Of the treated group (mean session = 38.8 +/- 8), three subjects (8.6%) underwent major amputation: two below the knee and one above the knee. In the nontreated group, 11 subjects (33.3%) underwent major amputation: 7 below the knee and 4 above the knee. The difference is statistically significant (P = 0.016). The relative risk for the treated group was 0.26 (95% CI 0.08-0.84). The transcutaneous oxygen tension measured on the dorsum of the foot significantly increased in subjects treated with hyperbaric oxygen therapy: 14.0 +/- 11.8 mmHg in treated group, 5.0 +/- 5.4 mmHg in nontreated group (P = 0.0002). Multivariate analysis of major amputation on all the considered variables confirmed the protective role of s-HBOT (odds ratio 0.084, P = 0.033, 95% CI 0.008-0.821) and indicated as negative prognostic determinants low ankle-brachial index values (odds ratio 1.715, P = 0.013, 95% CI 1.121-2.626) and high Wagner grade (odds ratio 11.199, P = 0.022, 95% CI 1.406-89.146).
                s-HBOT, in conjunction with an aggressive multidisciplinary therapeutic protocol, is effective in decreasing major amputations in diabetic patients with severe prevalently ischemic foot ulcers. This study examined the role of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBO) in the treatment of exercise-induced muscle injury.
                21 college-aged male volunteers were assigned to three groups: control, immediate HBO (iHBO), and delayed HBO (dHBO). All subjects performed 6 sets (10 repetitions per set) of eccentric repetitions with a load equivalent to 120% of their concentric maximum. HBO treatments consisted of 100-min exposure to 2.5 ATA and 100% oxygen with intermittent breathing of ambient air (30 min at 100% O2, 5 min at 20.93% O2). HBO treatments began either 2 (iHBO) or 24 h (dHBO) postexercise and were administered daily through day 4 postexercise. Forearm flexor cross-sectional area (CSA) and T2 relaxation time via magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were assessed at baseline, 2, 7, and 15 d postinjury. Isometric strength and rating of perceived soreness of the forearm flexors were assessed at baseline, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 15 d postinjury. Serum creatine kinase (CK) was assessed on day 0 and on days 1, 2, 7, and 15 postinjury.
                Mean baseline CSA values were: 2016.3, 1888.5, and 1972.2 mm2 for control, iHBO, and dHBO, respectively. All groups showed significant increases in CSA in response to injury (21% at 2 d, 18% at 7 d) (P < 0.0001), but there were no significant differences between groups (P = 0.438). Mean baseline T2 relaxation times were: 26.18, 26.28, and 27.43 msec for control, iHBO, and dHBO, respectively. Significant increases in T2 relaxation time were observed for all groups (64% at 2 d, 66% at 7 d, and 28% at 15 d) (P < 0.0001), but there were no significant differences between groups (P = 0.692). Isometric strength (P < 0.0001), serum CK levels (P = 0.0007), and rating of perceived soreness (P < 0.0001) also indicated significant muscle injury for all groups, but there were no differences between groups (P = 0.459, P = 0.943, and P = 0.448, respectively).
                These results suggest that hyperbaric oxygen therapy was not effective in the treatment of exercise-induced muscle injury as indicated by the markers evaluated.
This systematic review has not found sufficient evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of HBOT for the management of thermal burns. Evidence from the two randomised controlled trials is insufficient to provide clear guidelines for practice. Further research is needed to better define the role of HBOT in the treatment of thermal burns.