is the medical use of oxygen at a higher level than atmospheric pressure and is yet another treatment option for symptoms associated withhydranencephaly, I'm told, but have yet to find someone who believes it will make a difference inBrayden...but I have been told that it "could" provide some improvements. Maybe this post will put me into contact with someone who I haven't been before in regards to this, or other treatment options.
Here's a definition ofHBOTfrom thiswebsite:
Hyper" means increased and "baric" relates to pressure.Hyperbaricoxygen therapy (HBOT) thus refers to intermittent treatment of the entire body with 100-percent oxygen at greater than normal atmospheric pressures. The earth's atmosphere normally exerts approximately 15 pounds per square inch of pressure at sea level. That pressure is defined as one atmosphere absolute (abbreviated as 1ATA). In the ambient atmosphere we normally breathe approximately 20 percent oxygen and 80 percent nitrogen. While undergoingHBOT, pressure is increased up to two times (2ATA) in 100% oxygen. In theSechristmonoplacechambers utilized at our facilities, the entire body is totally immersed in 100-percent oxygen. There is no need to wear a mask or hood. This increased pressure, combined with an increase in oxygen to 100 percent, dissolves oxygen in the blood plasma and in all body cells, tissues and fluids at up to 10 times normal concentration—high enough to sustain life with no blood at all (from 20% to 100% oxygen is a 5-fold increase, from 1ATAto 2ATAcan double this again to a 10-fold or 1,000% increase).
While some of the mechanisms of action ofHBOT, as they apply to healing and reversal of symptoms, are yet to be discovered, it is known thatHBOT:
1) greatly increases oxygen concentration in all body tissues, even with reduced or blocked blood flow;
2) stimulates the growth of new blood vessels to locations with reduced circulation, improving blood flow to areas with arterial blockage;
3) causes a rebound arterial dilation afterHBOT, resulting in an increased blood vessel diameter greater than when therapy began, improving blood flow to compromised organs;
4) stimulates an adaptive increase insuperoxidedismutase(SOD), one of the body's principal, internally produced antioxidants and free radical scavengers; and,
5) aids the treatment of infection by enhancing white blood cell action andpotentiatinggerm-killing antibiotics.
While not new,HBOThas only lately begun to gain recognition for treatment of chronic degenerative health problems related to atherosclerosis, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, diabetic ulcers, wound healing, cerebral palsy, brain injury, multiple sclerosis,maculardegeneration, and many other disorders.Wherever blood flow and oxygen delivery to vital organs is reduced, function and healing can potentially be aided withHBOT. When the brain is injured by stroke,CP, or trauma, HBO may wake up stunned parts of the brain to restore function.
One of the world's most experienced authorities onhyperbaricmedicine was Dr. Edgar End, clinical professor of environmental medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, who voiced his opinion onHBOT'svalue for the treatment of stroke in this way: "I've seen partially paralyzed people half carried into the (HBOT) chamber, and they walk out after the first treatment. If we got to these people quickly, we could prevent a great deal of damage."
FromWikipedia, here are the uses thatHBOTis approved for in the United States thus far:
In the United States, theUndersea andHyperbaricMedical Society, known asUHMS, approves for reimbursement diagnoses for application ofHBOTin hospitals. The followingindicationsare approved uses ofhyperbaricoxygen therapy as defined by theUHMSHyperbaricOxygen Therapy Committee.
In theUnited States, HBOT is recognized byMedicareas a reimbursable treatment for 14 UHMS "approved" conditions. An HBOT session costs anywhere from $100 to $200 in private clinics, to over $1,000 in hospitals. U.S. physicians may lawfully prescribe HBOT for "off-label" conditions such asLyme Disease,strokeandmigraines.Such patients are treated in outpatient clinics. In theUnited Kingdommost chambers are financed by theNational Health Service, although some, such as those run by Multiple Sclerosis Therapy Centres, are non-profit.
Other reported applications include:
HBOT is controversial and health policy regarding its uses is politically charged. Both sides of the controversy on the effectiveness of HBOT is available in the form ofCochrane Libraryreviews.
"HBOT is controversial"? Seriously, why are treatments that are deemed a miracle cure for so many ailments, found to be so controversial? Another case of lack of knowledge, in my opinion! But I found an article byDr. Cranton, who gives more reasons why it is found to be so controversial:
If Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy is so Good,
Why Is It Not More Widely Accepted?
By Elmer M. Cranton, M.D.
Copyright © 2001 Elmer M. Cranton, M.D.
Doctors are rarely taught about hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) in medical school and therefore most do not know about it. Only about 20 medical schools, less than 15 percent, have actual hyperbaric oxygen facilities, while perhaps another 20 have access to HBOT facilities. If physicians don't know about a therapy, they obviously won't prescribe it. If they don't prescribe HBOT, there is no incentive for more hyperbaric treatment facilities to be established. Therefore, there exist very few hyperbaric chambers, compared with potential need and benefit that could otherwise be achieved—only about 400 chambers in the entire U.S.A. Many of those are dedicated to diving accidents (bends) and are not available for other medical conditions. And, many are located in hospitals that restrict HBOT to a small number of medical conditions reimbursed by Medicare.
Hyperbaric facilities are very expensive to establish and outfit. It costs in the neighborhood of $150,000 to equip a small facility with a single monoplace chamber. Larger facilities and those with multi-place chambers can cost millions of dollars. Because only a few of the many medical conditions that might be helped by HBOT are reimbursed by health care insurance, patients must commonly pay the cost out of their own pockets. Fees for HBOT can range from $150 per hour to almost $1,000 per hour. This denial of insurance reimbursement discourages the creation of new facilities and many patients cannot afford the cost of HBOT when refused medical insurance coverage. It is not uncommon to require 50 to 100 of the hour-long treatments for full benefit.
It is not uncommon to require 50 to 100 of the hour-long treatments for full benefit.
Advertisements and marketing claims for hyperbaric oxygen therapy is regulated like a drug by the government's Food and Drug administration (FDA). It costs tens of millions of dollars to conduct medical research that meets FDA standards to allow claims for successful treatment of a specific illness. Medical insurance companies commonly take the position that if the FDA has not issued a formal approval, then the therapy is experimental and they refuse to pay. Because oxygen cannot be patented, profits on sales of oxygen are too small to pay for studies that meet FDA requirements.
Psychological defense mechanisms also come into play. If a doctor is not taught about HBOT in medical school (and most are not), and if a doctor therefore does not routinely use or prescribe HBOT for patients, then one of two things must be true in their minds: 1) either that doctor's medical education was deficient and he or she is not providing the best of care for patients; or, 2) other doctors routinely using and prescribing HBOT for conditions that are not FDA-approved (off-label) must be "quacks" who exploit desperate patients. Which do you think their choice will be? It's apparently difficult for many medical doctors to shed an attitude of God-like omniscience and admit that they simply do not know everything there is to know.
It's apparently difficult for many medical doctors to shed an attitude of God-like omniscience and admit that they simply do not know everything there is to know.
The medical profession is becoming polarized concerning HBOT. A large and powerful majority of medical doctors believe that HBOT should be restricted to treatment of those rare conditions with prior FDA approval. That majority now criticizes and even attacks the growing number of physicians who have become familiar with more than 30,000 published scientific papers the subject, and who advocate or use HBOT to treat patients with so-called off-label (non-FDA-approved) conditions. Opponents of such expanded utilization of HBOT should admit that they are remiss in their care of patients, they should open their minds, educate themselves further, and change their ways.
The medical community eagerly accepts scientific research buttressing a therapy it already approves. Somewhat more reluctantly, it examines and debates entirely novel approaches. But what it really hates is reappraising a treatment once rejected—getting the egg off their collective faces. Medicine, after all, is made up of people—people trailing MDs after their names—who, like the rest of us, do not enjoy admitting error.
Someday when HBOT therapy is an established part of standard medical care, historians of twentieth century medicine will wonder how so much supportive research on its benefits could have been published by skillful medical researchers and even more scrupulously ignored by the guardians of our health. By that time, most of the individuals who attempted to keep HBOT on the fringe will probably not be alive to blush, sparing them extensive embarrassment.
The amount of positive research is certainly formidable. And some studies that purport to demonstrate that HBOT doesn't work actually show the opposite. For example, a recent Canadian study of cerebral palsy showed significant benefit. Under political pressure from parents, the study was reluctantly designed and conducted by Canadian physicians who were inexperienced in the use of HBOT. Both the treatment and placebo groups were pressurized and both groups benefited. The published conclusion in that study mistakenly stated that HBOT did nothing. It's easy for opponents to design flawed studies and interpret the results to support their biased positions.
In a sense, we're attempting to set the record straight and to tell people—especially physicians—to become familiar with thepublished scientific evidence. Mainstream medical journals engage in unconscionable editorial censorship. They refuse to publish positive research studies on alternative therapies, and are quick to print editorial criticism and anecdotal letters to the editor that are biased against such treatments. They have also been quick to uncritically print flawed studies that erroneously allege to disprove a controversial therapy.
I still think that a large majority of the controversy comes from lack of knowledge, or the quick spread of misinformation. Here's some facts about HBOT, again fromWikipedia:
The traditional type ofhyperbaric chamberused for HBOT is ahard shelledpressure vessel. Such chambers can be run at absolute pressures up to 600kilopascalsor 85PSI (lbf/in²), nearly sixatmospheres.
Navies, diving organizations and hospitals typically operate these. They range in size from those which are portable and capable of treating just one patient to those which are fixed, very heavy and capable of treating eight or more patients.
The chamber may consist of: