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.
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.
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.