4.7 Article

Effects of Perioperative Oral Management in Patients with Cancer

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Volume 11, Issue 21, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11216576

Keywords

perioperative oral management; incidence of pneumonia; mortality

Funding

  1. JSPS KAKENHI [JP19K10440]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study found that perioperative oral management (POM) can reduce the risk of postoperative pneumonia in certain cancer patients, especially in lung and pancreatic cancer patients. POM has also been shown to lower mortality in these patients.
Perioperative oral management (POM) is used to prevent pneumonia in patients with cancer. However, the factors that expose hospitalized patients to increased risk of developing pneumonia remain unclear. For example, no study to date has compared the incidence of pneumonia in hospitalized patients by cancer primary lesion, or POM implementation, or not. We determined which patients were most likely to benefit from POM and examined the effects of POM on pneumonia prevention and mortality. In a total of 9441 patients with cancer who underwent surgery during hospitalization, there were 8208 patients in the No POM group, and 1233 in the POM group. We examined between-group differences in the incidence of pneumonia and associated outcomes during hospitalization. There was no significant between-group difference in the incidence of pneumonitis, however, patients with lung, or head and neck cancers, demonstrated a lower incidence of postoperative pneumonia. Among patients with lung and pancreatic cancers, mortality was significantly lower in the POM group. POM appears effective at reducing the risk of postoperative pneumonia in patients with certain cancers. Further, mortality was significantly lower in patients with lung and pancreatic cancers who received POM; hence, POM may be an effective adjuvant therapy for patients with cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available