Hydrogenology
Hydrogenology editorial 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 2024
Study record, not medical adviceThis page reports one source and Hydrogenology’s source-text extraction. It does not establish that molecular hydrogen is effective, safe or appropriate for any person. Human, animal and laboratory evidence must not be treated as equivalent.
Source and classification

What kind of evidence is this?

Evidence stream

Human

Reported design

Single-center randomized controlled parallel trial

Research topic

Brain tumors — glioma and glioblastoma

Administration classification

Inhaled H₂

Study result signal

Not reported in this record.

Outcome type

Not reported in this record.

Reported in the source

Methods at a glance

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.

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.

Results-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. Null findings, outcome type, study design and precision all matter.

Interpretation limits

Cautions and applicability

Design and reporting 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.

Preliminary appraisal framework

Not reported in this record.

Preliminary risk-of-bias status

Not reported in this record.

Appraisal rationale

Not reported in this record.

No single-study GRADE certainty rating is assigned. Certainty is assessed by important outcome across a complete eligible evidence set, not by attaching a final grade to one source.

Provenance

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.

Record revision

2026-08-10