Hydrogenology
Source-linked study record

Effects of perioperative hydrogen inhalation on brain edema and prognosis in patients with glioma: a single-center, randomized controlled study

Wu F et al. · Front Neurol. 2024;15:1413904.

HumanInhaled H₂Published 2024Source checked
Study record, not medical adviceThis record reports what the source states. It is not medical advice and does not establish that molecular hydrogen is effective, safe or appropriate for any person.
Quick summary

Study at a glance

Evidence type

Human

Population or model

Adults undergoing first surgery for glioma without prior radiotherapy or chemotherapy

Intervention and dose

Nasal inhalation of the generated H₂–O₂ mixture for more than 2 hours daily from admission until discharge · Approximately 66.7% H₂ + 33.3% O₂ by volume; the article uses 66%/33.3% and 66.7%/33.3% in different passages.

Duration

More than 2 hours daily from hospital admission through discharge

Reported result

Before discharge, edema volume was 11.5 ± 8.75 cm³ with H₂–O₂ versus 21.44 ± 19.51 cm³ in control (p=0.006), and edema regression was greater (p=0.041). Edema at all five earlier time points did not differ. Several day-3 sleep and pain measures differed, while inflammatory laboratory measures, length of stay and postoperative complications did not.

Main limitation

Single-center perioperative trial with 25 of 100 assessed patients absent from the analyzed set, multiple outcomes and only one late edema time point showing a difference. The study did not test tumor control, recurrence or survival despite the word ‘prognosis’ in its title. Public academic grants funded the study; authors declared no commercial conflicts.

Evidence and classification

What kind of evidence is this?

Evidence type

Human

Reported design

Single-center randomized controlled parallel trial

Research topic

Brain tumors — glioma and glioblastoma

Administration form

Inhaled H₂

Information not yet classified

Some editorial classification fields are still pending. The source-reported outcomes and result are shown below; Hydrogenology does not infer a positive or negative signal from prose automatically.

Reported in the source

Methods

Population or model

Adults undergoing first surgery for glioma without prior radiotherapy or chemotherapy

Sample

100 assessed; 89 randomized; 75 analyzed: control n=37 and H₂–O₂ n=38

Duration

More than 2 hours daily from hospital admission through discharge

Intervention

Nasal inhalation of the generated H₂–O₂ mixture for more than 2 hours daily from admission until discharge

Hydrogen form

Brown’s gas / oxyhydrogen — H₂ and O₂ co-delivered, not H₂ alone.

Dose or H₂ specification

Approximately 66.7% H₂ + 33.3% O₂ by volume; the article uses 66%/33.3% and 66.7%/33.3% in different passages.

H₂ flow

Not reported — cannot be calculated because the article does not state the intervention’s total mixed-gas flow.

O₂ delivered with H₂

33.3% O₂ by volume; O₂ flow is not reported. The control’s separate 0.5 L/min pure O₂ mixed with 2.5 L/min air must not be used to infer the intervention flow.

Comparator

33.3% oxygen delivered by mixing 0.5 L/min pure O₂ with 2.5 L/min air

Reported, not endorsed

Outcomes and reported result

Outcomes measured

CT-measured peri-tumoral brain edema, edema regression, sleep, pain, laboratory measures and postoperative complications

Reported result

Before discharge, edema volume was 11.5 ± 8.75 cm³ with H₂–O₂ versus 21.44 ± 19.51 cm³ in control (p=0.006), and edema regression was greater (p=0.041). Edema at all five earlier time points did not differ. Several day-3 sleep and pain measures differed, while inflammatory laboratory measures, length of stay and postoperative complications did not.

Extraction completeness

The complete open-access publisher article, all nine outcome tables, participant flow, funding and conflict statement were checked; positive and null results are represented and the unreported intervention flow is explicitly marked.

A reported association, difference or mechanism is not automatically a clinical benefit.

Interpretation limits

Limitations and applicability

Main methodological cautions

Single-center perioperative trial with 25 of 100 assessed patients absent from the analyzed set, multiple outcomes and only one late edema time point showing a difference. The study did not test tumor control, recurrence or survival despite the word ‘prognosis’ in its title. Public academic grants funded the study; authors declared no commercial conflicts.

Applies directly to

Adults undergoing first glioma surgery under this perioperative protocol; this is not evidence that H₂ treats the tumor itself.

No single-study GRADE certainty rating is assigned. Read how records and evidence assessments are prepared.

Sources and status

Sources and record status

Identifiers

PMID: 39099781 · DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2024.1413904

Publisher access

Open-access publisher and PMC full texts are available.

Extraction basis

Frontiers and PMC full articles plus the PubMed record; full-text and article-status check completed 8 August 2026.

Last reviewed

10 August 2026

Help the next reader

Help people check the facts before they buy.

Hydrogenology keeps 665 source-checked records accessible without advertising or product promotion.

Support independent access
Help us correct the recordReport a discrepancy

Send the exact difference between this page and the linked source. The study reference is attached automatically.