4.5 Article

Primary Hyperparathyroidism: An Analysis of Failure of Parathyroidectomy

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY
Volume 38, Issue 3, Pages 534-541

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-013-2434-6

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Preoperative imaging in patients undergoing surgery for primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) is used primarily to facilitate targeted parathyroidectomy. Failure of preoperative localisation mandates a bilateral exploration. It is thought that the results of imaging may also predict the success of surgery. The aims of this study were to assess whether the findings on preoperative localisation influenced outcomes following parathyroidectomy for PHPT and to explore factors underlying failure to cure at surgery. Methods We analysed outcomes of all patients who underwent first-time surgery for PHPT in two centres over a 5-year period to determine an association with demographic characteristics and findings on preoperative imaging. Records of patients not cured by initial surgery were reviewed to explore factors underlying failure to cure. Results The failure rate (persistent disease) in the entire cohort was 5 % (25/541) (bilateral neck explorations, 5 %; unilateral exploration, 7 %; targeted approach, 4 %), while two patients developed recurrent disease. In patients who had undergone dual imaging with an ultrasound scan and (99)m Tc-sestamibi scintigraphy, failure rates with lateralised and concordant'' imaging, nonconcordant'' imaging, and dual-negative'' imaging were 2, 9, and 11 %, respectively (p = 0.01). Of the 25 patients with persistent disease, multigland disease (MGD) was present in 52 % (13/25) and ectopic adenoma in 24 % (6/12). Conclusions Patients with PHPT who do not have lateralised and concordant dual imaging are at higher risk of persistent disease. A significant proportion of failures are due to the inability to recognise the presence and/or extent of MGD.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available