This article is part of the HBOT Radar series, where we summarize the latest published hyperbaric oxygen therapy research.
Fresh Science, Clearly Explained — Brought to you by Brain Spa Hyperbaric
Disclaimer: This article is intended for educational and informational purposes only. It summarizes published medical research conducted in clinical settings and does not evaluate Brain Spa Hyperbaric products. The hyperbaric chambers offered on this website are non-medical wellness devices and are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Do not make medical decisions based on this article — consult a qualified healthcare professional.
📌 Fifty Years of Research on Oxygen and Burns — What Do We Actually Know?
🔍 What this study explored
Over 2 million burn injuries happen in the United States alone each year. More than 75,000 of those people end up in hospital. Around 14,000 don't make it home. Burns aren't just skin damage — they trigger a chain reaction of inflammation, fluid loss, and oxygen starvation in tissues that can spiral for days after the initial injury.
Here's the part that makes this interesting for the HBOT world: a burn wound has three distinct zones. At the center, the tissue is already dead — nothing is saving it. But around that dead zone sits a critical ring of tissue that's injured but still alive, clinging on with reduced blood flow. Whether that tissue survives or dies often depends on one thing: whether it gets enough oxygen in the first 48-72 hours. And beyond that sits a zone of reddened, inflamed tissue that usually recovers — unless infection or further oxygen deprivation tips it over the edge.
The logic behind using HBOT for burns is compelling. Flood oxygen-starved tissue with oxygen under pressure, and you might stop that "zone of stasis" from dying off, reduce swelling, help fight infection, and speed up healing. Researchers have been testing this idea since the 1970s. But after five decades, there's still no consensus. Some studies show dramatic results; others show nothing. A few even raise red flags.
A team from UCLA set out to pull together everything we actually know. They systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase with no date restrictions and screened 729 articles. Thirteen studies — spanning from 1974 to 2023 — made the cut.
🌬️ HBOT protocols used in these studies
Across the 13 studies, protocols varied widely — which is itself a key finding:
- Pressures: 2.0 to 2.5 ATA, all using 100% oxygen
- Session duration: Consistently 90 minutes across most studies, with one using 120-minute sessions
- Frequency: Ranged from once daily to three sessions within the first 24 hours
- Total sessions: From as few as 2 sessions to over 30, depending on the study
- Timing: Some studies started HBOT within hours of injury; others began days later
There was no sham or placebo control in most studies — control groups simply received standard burn care without HBOT.
Important: All studies used clinical-grade HBOT in medical settings at pressures of 2.0 ATA or higher with 100% oxygen delivery. These protocols are fundamentally different from consumer or wellness-grade chambers.
📊 Key findings
The headline result: healing time
The most striking finding came from one of the older studies. Hart et al. (1974) — an RCT with 191 patients — observed that the HBOT group's average healing time was 19.7 days compared to 43.8 days in the control group. That's not a modest improvement — it's less than half the healing time. The same study observed lower fluid requirements (2.2 vs 3.4 mL/kg/%TBSA) and reduced mortality in the HBOT group.
But before you get too excited — keep reading.
Surgery and hospitalization: a mixed picture
This is where the story gets interesting, because the data genuinely pulls in both directions.
On the positive side: Cianci et al. reported across two studies (1989, 1990) that HBOT was associated with hospital stays roughly 34% shorter and surgical procedures reduced by 39%. Özdemir et al. (2023) found that only 10.3% of HBOT patients required surgery compared to 48.3% of controls, with epithelialization time averaging 13.4 days versus 22.1 days.
On the other side: Brannen et al. (1997) — the largest RCT with 125 patients — observed no significant difference in hospital stay, mortality, or number of surgeries. Jones et al. (2015) actually found longer hospital stays in the HBOT group. And Chiang et al. (2017) found no significant differences in graft requirements or hospitalization length.
Infection control: intriguing but inconclusive
Several studies observed markers suggesting HBOT may help with infection. Chiang et al. noted that a key sepsis marker (serum procalcitonin) normalized faster in the HBOT group. Chong et al. found fewer positive tissue cultures, suggesting an antimicrobial effect. In a controlled experiment on healthy volunteers, Niezgoda et al. observed a 42% reduction in wound redness, 35% reduction in wound size, and 22% reduction in wound fluid leakage.
But Waisbren et al. actually reported higher rates of sepsis and kidney complications in the HBOT group — despite signs of reduced acute inflammation. The infection picture is far from settled.
What patients say: less pain, more satisfaction
One consistent bright spot: patients who received HBOT reported better outcomes from their own perspective. Chen et al. found significantly improved pain scores and higher satisfaction. Özdemir et al. confirmed the satisfaction finding in a separate study.
Mortality: the hardest question
This is where the data is most contradictory. Hart et al. observed mortality improvements of 21-30%. Grossman (1978) reported mortality rates of 41.7% in the HBOT group versus 68% in controls. But Nygaard et al. (2021) — the largest dataset with over 13,000 patients — observed higher mortality in the HBOT group (29.9% vs 17.5%). The reviewers note that confounding factors like older age distribution in the HBOT group likely played a role, but this finding can't simply be dismissed. Other studies, including the largest RCT (Brannen et al.), found no difference either way.
Cost: potentially worthwhile
Despite HBOT being expensive, the studies that looked at economics found potential savings. Cianci et al. reported average savings of $31,600 per patient — a 34% reduction in total treatment costs — attributed to shorter stays and fewer surgeries. Özdemir et al. also observed lower total costs in the HBOT group.
🧠 Why this study matters
This review is valuable because it's unflinchingly honest about the state of the evidence. The signals are there: faster healing, fewer surgeries in some populations, less pain, possible infection benefits. But so are the contradictions: the largest dataset showed higher mortality, the largest RCT showed no benefit, and every study measured different things in different ways.
Here's why this hasn't been settled despite 50 years of research:
The studies are too small and too different. Only 566 patients received HBOT across all 13 studies combined. Burn severity ranged from less than 1% of body surface area to over 90%. Some studies looked at healing time, others at mortality, others at blood markers — making it impossible to statistically pool the results.
There's no standard protocol. Pressures ranged from 2.0 to 2.5 ATA. Session frequency varied from once daily to three times in 24 hours. Total treatments ranged from 2 to 30+. Until researchers agree on what protocol to test, every study is essentially testing a different intervention.
The strongest positive result is from 1974. Hart et al.'s dramatic healing time reduction (19.7 vs 43.8 days) remains the most impressive finding — but it's also over 50 years old, from an era with very different burn care standards. Whether those results would hold with today's advanced wound care is an open question.
Selection bias is a real concern. In retrospective studies, the patients who received HBOT may have been systematically different from those who didn't — perhaps sicker (which would bias against HBOT) or perhaps specifically selected as good candidates (which would bias in its favor).
📌 Takeaway for the community
- Across 13 studies spanning 50 years, HBOT as an adjunct to burn care was associated with faster healing and reduced surgical need in several studies — but the largest RCT found no benefit
- The most dramatic positive result (healing time cut by more than half) comes from a 1974 study that may not reflect modern burn care standards
- Mortality data is contradictory — some studies observed improvements, while the largest dataset observed higher mortality in the HBOT group (likely confounded by patient selection)
- Patient-reported outcomes were consistently positive: less pain, higher satisfaction
- All studies used clinical-grade HBOT at 2.0-2.5 ATA with 100% oxygen in medical settings — not comparable to consumer wellness chambers
- The field urgently needs large, well-designed randomized trials with standardized protocols before any firm conclusions can be drawn
Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41700783/
Molina-Vega J, Pferdehirt RE, Vardanian AJ. Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy in Burn Care: A Systematic Review of Current Evidence. J Burn Care Res. 2026 Feb 17:irag026. doi: 10.1093/jbcr/irag026.
Educational disclaimer
This content summarizes findings from published medical research for educational purposes only.
The hyperbaric chambers sold on this website are non-medical wellness devices and are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.
The studies discussed here were conducted in clinical medical settings using medical-grade interventions. The inclusion of research summaries does not imply that similar outcomes can be achieved using non-medical wellness devices.
