4.1 Article

Hyperbaric oxygen treatment and bisphosphonate-induced osteonecrosis of the jaw: A case series

期刊

JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY
卷 65, 期 7, 页码 1321-1327

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2007.03.019

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Bisphosphonate (BP)-associated osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ) is an emerging problem with few therapeutic options. Our pilot study of BP-ONJ investigated a possible role for hyperbaric oxygen (HBO2) therapy. Patients and Methods: A total of 16 patients, ranging in age from 43 to 78 years, with BP-ONJ were treated with adjunctive HBO2 between July 2003 and April 2006. Staging was based on the size and number of oral lesions. Clinical response after treatment and at distant follow-up; the odds of remission, stabilization, or relapse; and time to failure analysis were calculated. Results: The median time on BP therapy before appearance of ONJ symptoms was 18 months, and that from symptom onset to HBO2 therapy was 12 months. Fourteen of 16 patients (87.5%) improved in stage. The size and number of ONJ lesions were decreased after HBO2 therapy (P <.001 and P =.008, respectively; Wilcoxon signed-rank test). Immediately after HBO2 therapy, 7 of 16 patients (44%) were in remission and 8 (50%) had stabilized; however, stabilization without remission was sustained in only 2 patients. At follow-up, 10 of the patients (62.5%) were still in remission or had stabilized. The 7 patients who continued on BP treatment during HBO2 therapy had a shorter time to failure (8.5 months; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 7.1 to 9.8) than those who discontinued the drug (20.1 months; 95% CI = 17.5 to 23.9; P =.006 by the log-rank test). Clinical response was not associated with cancer type or malignancy remission status. Conclusions: Adjunctive HBO2 therapy may benefit patients with BP-ONJ; however, the outcome is improved with cessation of BP administration. (c) 2007 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

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

4.1
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