Dataset Information

Interventions for Trismus in Head and Neck Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Current treatment for head and neck cancers (HNCs) have led to an improved survival. However, the sequelae of cancer treatment often result in trismus, or reduced mouth opening. The purpose of this report is to identify interventional studies for trismus management in HNC patients.

Methods

A search of PubMed, Embase, Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Library was conducted in March 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving interventions for trismus for head and neck cancer within 10 years. Intervention could involve the use of an exercise regime, jaw rehabilitation device, technological device, medication or massage therapy. The primary outcome was the measurement of mouth opening.

Results

Eleven RCTs involving a total of 685 patients with HNC were included. Six RCTs evaluated the effectiveness of a jaw mobilization device with exercises; there was no significant benefit of an exercise regime with a jaw mobilization device either initiated before, during or after treatment compared to no exercise. Two RCTs compared 2 intervention groups that involved exercises only, with 1 study assessing the benefit of weekly supervised physical therapy with gum chewing and another evaluating the benefit of immediate (1-2 days) versus delayed (7-10 days) initiation of exercise post-surgery; there was no significant difference between groups in either study. One RCT that recruited only patients with trismus demonstrated that an exercise regime in combination with low-level laser therapy or low-intensity ultrasound had superior results in mouth opening measurements compared to exercise alone. Two RCTs compared intervention groups with and without follow-up reminders; both studies showed a significant improvement in mouth opening measurements in groups with follow-up reminders.

Conclusion

This systematic review did not convey a clear consensus as to optimal intervention for trismus in HNC patients. A variety of exercise regimens and jaw rehabilitation devices appear to have comparable effectiveness. However, efforts focused on increasing adherence to a particular intervention protocol may positively impact mouth opening measures in head and neck cancer patients. Also, low-level laser therapy and low-intensity ultrasound coupled with exercise may be beneficial for patients with trismus.

SUBMITTER: Chee S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8145608 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of process interventions (education for clinicians, parent presence, education of parents [before and on day of vaccination], and education of patients on day of vaccination) on reducing vaccination pain, fear, and distress and increasing the use of interventions during vaccination.Design/methodsDatabases were searched using a broad search strategy to identify relevant randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Critical outcomes were pain, fear, distress (when applicable), and use of pain management interventions. Data were extracted according to procedure phase (preprocedure, acute, recovery, combinations of these) and pooled using established methods. Analyses were conducted using standardized mean differences (SMD) and risk ratios (RR).ResultsThirteen studies were included. Results were generally mixed. On the basis of low to very low-quality evidence, the following specific critical outcomes showed significant effects suggesting: (1) clinicians should be educated about vaccine injection pain management (use of interventions: SMD 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47, 0.85); (2) parents should be present (distress preprocedure: SMD -0.85; 95% CI: -1.35, -0.35); (3) parents should be educated before the vaccination day (use of intervention preprocedure: SMD 0.83; 95% CI: 0.25, 1.41 and RR, 2.08; 95% CI: 1.51, 2.86; distress acute: SMD, -0.35; 95% CI: -0.57, -0.13); (4) parents should be educated on the vaccination day (use of interventions: SMD 1.02; 95% CI: 0.22, 1.83 and RR, 2.42; 95% CI: 1.47, 3.99; distress preprocedure+acute+recovery: SMD -0.48; 95% CI: -0.82, -0.15); and (5) individuals 3 years of age and above should be educated on the day of vaccination (fear preprocedure: SMD -0.67; 95% CI: -1.28, -0.07).ConclusionsEducating individuals involved in the vaccination procedure (clinicians, parents of children being vaccinated; individuals above 3 y of age) is beneficial to increase use of pain management strategies, reduce distress surrounding with vaccination, and to reduce fear. When possible, parent presence is also recommended for children undergoing vaccination.

Project description:BackgroundThis systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of physical and procedural interventions for reducing pain and related outcomes during vaccination.Design/methodsDatabases were searched using a broad search strategy to identify relevant randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Data were extracted according to procedure phase (preprocedure, acute, recovery, and combinations of these) and pooled using established methods.ResultsA total of 31 studies were included. Acute infant distress was diminished during intramuscular injection without aspiration (n=313): standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.18, -0.46). Injecting the most painful vaccine last during vaccinations reduced acute infant distress (n=196): SMD -0.69 (95% CI: -0.98, -0.4). Simultaneous injections reduced acute infant distress compared with sequential injections (n=172): SMD -0.56 (95% CI: -0.87, -0.25). There was no benefit of simultaneous injections in children. Less infant distress during the acute and recovery phases combined occurred with vastus lateralis (vs. deltoid) injections (n=185): SMD -0.70 (95% CI: -1.00, -0.41). Skin-to-skin contact in neonates (n=736) reduced acute distress: SMD -0.65 (95% CI: -1.05, -0.25). Holding infants reduced acute distress after removal of the data from 1 methodologically diverse study (n=107): SMD -1.25 (95% CI: -2.05, -0.46). Holding after vaccination (n=417) reduced infant distress during the acute and recovery phases combined: SMD -0.65 (95% CI: -1.08, -0.22). Self-reported fear was reduced for children positioned upright (n=107): SMD -0.39 (95% CI: -0.77, -0.01). Non-nutritive sucking (n=186) reduced acute distress in infants: SMD -1.88 (95% CI: -2.57, -1.18). Manual tactile stimulation did not reduce pain across the lifespan. An external vibrating device and cold reduced pain in children (n=145): SMD -1.23 (95% CI: -1.58, -0.87). There was no benefit of warming the vaccine in adults. Muscle tension was beneficial in selected indices of fainting in adolescents and adults.ConclusionsInterventions with evidence of benefit in select populations include: no aspiration, injecting most painful vaccine last, simultaneous injections, vastus lateralis injection, positioning interventions, non-nutritive sucking, external vibrating device with cold, and muscle tension.

Project description:BackgroundAmifostine is the most clinical used chemical radioprotector, but its effect in patients treated with radiation is not consistent.MethodsBy searching Medline, CENTRAL, EMBASE, ASCO, ESMO, and CNKI databases, the published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the efficacy of amifostine in HNSCC patients treated with radiotherapy were collected. The pooled efficacy and side effects of this drug were calculated by RevMan software.ResultsSeventeen trials including a total of 1167 patients (604 and 563 each arm) were analyzed in the meta-analysis. The pooled data showed that the use of amifostine significantly reduce the risk of developing Grade 3-4 mucositis (relative risk [RR],0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI],0.54-0.95; p<0.00001), Grade 2-4 acute xerostomia (RR,0.70; 95%CI,0.52-0.96; p = 0.02), or late xerostomia (RR,0.60; 95%CI,0.49-0.74; p<0.00001) and Grade 3-4 dysphagia (RR,0.39; 95%CI,0.17-0.92; p = 0.03). However, subgroup analysis demonstrated that no statistically significant reduction of Grade 3-4 mucositis (RR,0.97; 95% CI,0.74-1.26; p = 0.80), Grade 2-4 acute xerostomia (RR,0.35; 95%CI,0.02-5.44; p = 0.45), or late xerostomia (RR,0.40; 95%CI,0.13-1.24; p = 0.11) and Grade 3-4 dysphagia (RR,0.23; 95%CI,0.01-4.78; p = 0.35) was observed in patients treated with concomitant chemoradiotherapy. Compared with placebo or observation, amifostine does not show tumor protective effect in complete response (RR,1.02; 95%CI,0.89-1.17; p = 0.76) and partial response (RR,0.90; 95%CI, 0.56-1.44; p = 0.66). For the hematologic side effect, no statistical difference of Grade 3-4 leucopenia (RR,0.60; 95%CI,0.35-1.05; p = 0.07), anemia (RR,0.80; 95%CI, 0.42-1.53; p = 0.50) and thrombocytopenia (RR,0.43; 95%CI,0.16-1.15; p = 0.09) were found between amifostine and control groups. The most common amifostine related side effects were nausea, emesis, hypotension and allergic with an average incidence rate (Grade 3-4) of 5%, 6%, 4% and 4% respectively.ConclusionThis systematic review showed that amifostine significantly reduce the serious mucositis, acute/late xerastomia and dysphagia without protection of the tumor in HNSCC patients treated with radiotherapy. And the toxicities of amifostine were generally acceptable.