Universitätspublikationen
Refine
Year of publication
- 2021 (2)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- photodynamic therapy (2) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (2)
Focal therapy is a modern alternative to selectively treat a specific part of the prostate harboring clinically significant disease while preserving the rest of the gland. The aim of this therapeutic approach is to retain the oncological benefit of active treatment and to minimize the side-effects of common radical treatments. The oncological effectiveness of focal therapy is yet to be proven in long-term robust trials. In contrast, the toxicity profile is well-established in randomized controlled trials and multiple robust prospective cohort studies. This narrative review summarizes the relevant evidence on complications and their management after focal therapy. When compared to whole gland treatments, focal therapy provides a substantial benefit in terms of adverse events reduction and preservation of genito-urinary function. The most common complications occur in the peri-operative period. Urinary tract infection and acute urinary retention can occur in up to 17% of patients, while dysuria and haematuria are more common. Urinary incontinence following focal therapy is very rare (0–5%), and the vast majority of patients recover in few weeks. Erectile dysfunction can occur after focal therapy in 0–46%: the baseline function and the ablation template are the most important factors predicting post-operative erectile dysfunction. Focal therapy in the salvage setting after external beam radiotherapy has a significantly higher rate of complications. Up to one man in 10 will present a severe complication.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and microbiological effects of subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone or combined with either local drug delivery (LDD) or photodynamic therapy (PDT) in persistent/recurrent pockets in patients enrolled in supportive periodontal therapy (SPT). A total of 105 patients enrolled in SPT were randomly treated as follows: group A (n = 35): SI +PDT and 7 days later 2nd PDT; group B (n = 35): SI+LDD; group C (n = 35): SI (control). Prior intervention, at 3 and 6 months after therapy, probing pocket depths, clinical attachment level, number of treated sites with bleeding on probing (n BOP), full mouth plaque and bleeding scores (gingival bleeding index, %BOP) were recorded. At the same time points, 8 periodontopathogens were quantitatively determined. All three treatments resulted in statistically significant improvements (p < 0.05) of all clinical parameters without statistically significant intergroup differences (p > 0.05). Several bacterial species were reduced in both test groups, with statistically significantly higher reductions for LDD compared to PDT and the control group. In conclusion, the present data indicate that: (a) In periodontal patients enrolled in SPT, treatment of persistent/recurrent pockets with SI alone or combined with either PDT or LDD may lead to comparable clinical improvements and (b) the adjunctive use of LDD appears to provide better microbiological improvements for some periodontal pathogens than SI alone or combined with PDT.