4.4 Article

Influence of low-energy laser in the prevention of oral mucositis in children with cancer receiving chemotherapy

Journal

PEDIATRIC BLOOD & CANCER
Volume 48, Issue 4, Pages 435-440

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pbc.20943

Keywords

cancer; chemotherapy; children; laser; mucositis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. This study assessed the use of low-energy laser in the prevention or reduction of the severity of oral mucositis. Procedure. A randomized clinical trial was carried out. Patients from 3 to 18 years of age treated with chemotherapy or hematopoietic stein-cell transplantation between May, 2003 and February, 2005 were elegible. The intervention group received laser application for 5 days following the start of chemotherapy. The grade of oral mucositis was assessed by the WHO per NCI-CTC common toxicity criteria and the assessments were made on days 1, 8 and 15 by a trained examiner blind to the intervention. Results. Sixty patients were evaluable for analysis; thirty-nine (65%) were males, 35 (58%) patients had a diagnosis of leukemia or lymphoma, and 25 (42%) had solid tumors. The mean age was 8.7 +/- 4.3 years. Twenty-nine patients were randomized in the laser group and 31 in the control group. On day 1, no patients presented with mucositis. On day 8, of 20 patients (36%) who developed mucositis, 13 of them were from the laser group and 7 from the control group. On day 15, of 24 patients (41%) who developed mucositis, 13 of them were from the laser group and I Ifrorn the control group. There was no significant difference between groups concerning the grades of mucositis on day 8 (P=0.234) or on day 15 (P=0.208). Conclusions. This study showed no evidence of benefit from the prophylactic use of low-energy laser in children and adolescents with cancer treated with chemotherapy when optimal dental and oral care was provided. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2007;48:435-440. (c) 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available