4.7 Article

Evaluation of the Safety of Percutaneous Sensory Nerve Stimulation in Patients with Head and Neck Cancer Receiving Chemoradiotherapy

期刊

JOURNAL OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE
卷 13, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jpm13071129

关键词

head and neck neoplasms; electric stimulation; chemoradiotherapy; swallowing; dysphagia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the safety of transcutaneous electrical sensory stimulation (TESS) in head and neck cancer patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy (CRT). The results showed that TESS was feasible and safe during CRT, with no severe adverse reactions. Therefore, TESS has great potential for improving swallowing difficulties in head and neck cancer patients.
Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is the standard treatment for locally advanced head and neck cancer; however, CRT may cause post-treatment dysphagia. Transcutaneous electrical sensory stimulation (TESS), developed in recent years for swallowing rehabilitation, is used at many medical facilities. Although TESS has been used for dysphagia in several fields, its safety and efficacy in patients with head and neck cancer remain to be clarified. Therefore, this study evaluated the safety of TESS in ten patients with head and neck cancers undergoing CRT. Swallowing rehabilitation intervention and TESS implementation were performed for all patients during CRT. Non-blood-toxicity adverse events (AEs), such as dermatitis and mucositis, occurred during CRT; however, the severity was less than grade 3. No patient experienced pain due to TESS. As survival time analysis using the Kaplan-Meier method for interferential current device implementation rates revealed a feasibility of 100% for up to 60 Gy and a feasibility of 78% for up to 70 Gy, TESS may be feasible until 70 Gy. This study confirmed the feasibility and safety of TESS in the head and neck region during CRT. Although the precise mechanism of TESS on dysphagia remains unclear, its continued use has great potential for improving sensory disturbance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据