Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for thermal burns

  1. Elmer Villanueva2,
  2. Michael H Bennett3,
  3. Jason Wasiak1,*,
  4. Jan P Lehm4

Editorial Group: Cochrane Injuries Group

Published Online: 19 APR 2004

Assessed as up-to-date: 31 MAY 2009

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004727.pub2


How to Cite

Villanueva E, Bennett MH, Wasiak J, Lehm JP. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for thermal burns. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD004727. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004727.pub2.

Author Information

  1. 1

    The Alfred Hospital, Victorian Adult Burns Service, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

  2. 2

    Monash University, Gippsland Medical School, Churchill, Victoria, Australia

  3. 3

    Prince of Wales Hospital, Department of Anaesthesia, Randwick, NSW, Australia

  4. 4

    Prince of Wales Hospital, Department of Diving and Hyperbaric Medicine, Randwick, NSW, Australia

*Jason Wasiak, Victorian Adult Burns Service, The Alfred Hospital, Commercial Road, Prahran, Melbourne, Victoria, 3181, Australia. J.Wasiak@alfred.org.au. jwasiak1971@gmail.com.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New search for studies and content updated (no change to conclusions)
  2. Published Online: 19 APR 2004

SEARCH

 
Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]
Brannen 1997

MethodsRandomised controlled trial comparing routine burn management or routine burn management with the addition of HBOT.


Participants125 acutely burned patients (94 male, 31 female; age in years, range of body surface area burnt and dates of enrolment into study not given; location of study - USA) with or without inhalation injury admitted within 24 hours of injury.


InterventionsRoutine burn management plus treatment in an unstated chamber HBO device using 100% oxygen at 2 ATA for 90 minutes twice a day for at least 10 treatments and a maximum of one treatment per percent total body surface area burn.


OutcomesLength of stay, mortality, and number of surgeries.


Notes


Risk of bias

ItemAuthors' judgementDescription

Blinding?
All outcomes
No

Hart 1974

MethodsRandomised controlled trial comparing routine burn management and HBOT or routine burn management with sham HBOT.


Participants16 patients (14 male, 2 female; age range 21.31 to 21.62 years and enrolment into a USA study between Nov 1972 and Jan 1974) with thermal burns amounting to between 10 and 50% of the total body surface area admitted within 24 hours of injury.


InterventionsRoutine burn management and HBOT or sham HBOT in a monoplace HBO chamber with 100% oxygen at 2 ATA for 90 minutes every 8 hours for 24 hours, then every 12 hours until healed.


OutcomesMean healing time, requirements for grafts, adverse effects, acute fluid requirements.


Notes


Risk of bias

ItemAuthors' judgementDescription

Blinding?
All outcomes
Yes

 
Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

StudyReason for exclusion

Niezgoda 1997Model burn in volunteers. Required little specific therapy - very minor burn.

Williamson 1993No clinical outcomes reported. Abstract only available.

Xu 1999No clinical outcomes reported. Abstract only available.

 
Comparison 1. Death

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Mortality at last follow-up1Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)Subtotals only

 
Comparison 2. Time to heal

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Mean time to healing (days)116Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)Not estimable

 
Comparison 3. Fluid requirement

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Intravenous fluid replacement (mls)116Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)Not estimable

 
Comparison 4. Graft success

Outcome or subgroup titleNo. of studiesNo. of participantsStatistical methodEffect size

 1 Graft success at final follow-up15Risk Ratio (M-H, Fixed, 95% CI)1.75 [0.53, 5.76]