METHODS: Twenty-nine children in each group, matched for age, sex and ethnicity, were assessed using the Glasgow outcome Scale (GOS), Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-III), Movement Assessment Battery for Children (Movement ABC), Wide Range Assessment of Learning and Memory (WRAML) and a standardised neurological examination 6 months post-injury. Parental reporting of pre- and post-injury behaviour was documented using the Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL).
RESULTS: Seven (24.1%) children with sCHI and three (10.3%) orthopaedic controls had residual motor deficits. Three (10.3%) children with sCHI and none in the other groups faced problems with independent ambulation. Twenty-seven (93.1%) of those with sCHI and all children in the other groups had GOS scores of good recovery or moderate disability. Twenty-two (81.5%) sCHI, five (18.5%) mCHI and one (3.7%) orthopaedic control reported a deterioration in school performance. MANOVAS identified a significant injury group effect for performance skills (P = 0.007), verbal skills (P = 0.002), memory and learning (P = 0.001) and motor skills (P = 0.001). Repeated measures ANOVA for pre- and post-injury CBCL scores showed significant differences related to somatic complaints (P = 0.004), problems of socialising (P = 0.003), delinquency (P = 0.004), aggressiveness (P = 0.010), thought (P < 0.001) and attention (P < 0.001). Post-hoc univariate analysis showed the significant differences were between that of the sCHI children and the other two groups.
CONCLUSION: Although most sCHI children seemed to have made good physical recovery, there were cognitive, motor, memory and learning difficulties and behavioural problems concomitant with a deterioration in school performance compared with those with lesser or no head injury. This highlights the need for better integrated rehabilitation services to enable a gradual return into mainstream school.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer requiring radiation to the oropharyngeal mucosal area were divided in to two groups to receive either radiation alone or radiation plus topical application of pure natural honey. Patients were treated using a 6-MV linear accelerator at a dose rate of 2 Gy per day five times a week up to a dose of 60-70 Gy. In the study arm, patients were advised to take 20 ml of pure honey 15 min before, 15 min after and 6 h post-radiation therapy. Patients were evaluated every week for the development of radiation mucositis using the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grading system.
MAIN RESULTS: There was significant reduction in the symptomatic grade 3/4 mucositis among honey-treated patients compared to controls; i.e. 20% versus 75% ( p 0.00058). The compliance of honey-treated group of patients was better than controls. Fifty-five percent of patients treated with topical honey showed no change or a positive gain in body weight compared to 25% in the control arm ( p 0.053), the majority of whom lost weight.
CONCLUSIONS: Topical application of natural honey is a simple and cost-effective treatment in radiation mucositis, which warrants further multi-centre randomised trials to validate our finding.