PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Sheth, Megha K.
AU  - Collet, Casey
AU  - Lin, De-Chen
AU  - Sinha, Uttam K.
TI  - Effectiveness of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Compared to Surgical Free Tissue Flap for Osteoradionecrosis of the Jaw: A Meta-Analysis
AID  - 10.1101/2023.09.25.23296038
DP  - 2023 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2023.09.25.23296038
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/09/27/2023.09.25.23296038.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/09/27/2023.09.25.23296038.full
AB  - Background Osteoradionecrosis (ORN) of the jaw is an uncommon but potentially serious complication of radiation therapy for head and neck cancer, with many cases presenting months to years after completion of radiotherapy. ORN-related morbidity is high, making effective management of osteoradionecrosis essential. Current treatment options include hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT), surgical management (free flap), and PENTOCLO, among others. Our goal is to analyze the reported efficacy of hyperbaric oxygen therapy versus microvascular free flap in ORN.Methods This review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A systematic review search strategy was developed by a librarian (JED). The search was performed in the following databases on March 8, 2023: PubMed, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Two reviewers independently assessed the titles, abstracts, and full-text manuscripts based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The risk of bias of the final included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. final included studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa risk of bias assessment, and analyses were performed using risk ratios.Results The initial search yielded 1,614 articles with 407 undergoing full-text review. Ultimately, nine studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. In total, 339 patients were included across the nine studies. Each of the nine studies reported on resolution of ORN with HBOT versus surgical free flap, with six studies showing significant differences in outcomes, with surgical free flap yielding significantly higher complete resolution of ORN compared to HBOT (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.2-0.85; RR 0.07, 95% CI 0-0.99; RR 0.04, 95% CI 0-0.57; RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.04-0.34; RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.08-0.54; RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.24-0.78). Three studies showed no significant differences in ORN resolution (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.03-4.19; RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.03-4.19; RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.11-1.09). The summary outcome of ORN resolution found a significant difference between surgical free flap and HBOT (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.17-0.45).Conclusions Despite the traditional practice of recommending HBOT for ORN treatment, our meta-analysis suggests that HBOT provides little benefit, especially for later stages of disease, and that surgical intervention via surgical free flap yields superior outcomes. However, there may be some benefit of HBOT in conservative management of early and intermediate cases of ORN. Surgical reconstruction with microvascular free flap may be a superior alternative to HBOT in the management of these patients.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any fundingAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.govI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript