4.6 Article

An analysis of whether surgeon-performed neck ultrasound can be used as the main localizing study in primary hyperparathyroidism

期刊

SURGERY
卷 156, 期 5, 页码 1127-1131

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2014.05.009

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Tc-99 sestamibi (MIBI) scan is the imaging study most frequently used in primary hyperparathyroidism (PHP). Transcutaneous cervical ultrasonography (US) is the other modality used for preoperative localization. The aim of this study was to determine whether surgeon-performed neck US can be used as the primary localizing study in PHP. Methods. This, was a prospective study of 1,000 consecutive patients with first-time, sporadic PHP who underwent parathyroidectomy at a tertiary academic center. All patients had surgeon-performed neck US and MIBI before bilateral neck exploration. Results. The findings at exploration were 72% single adenoma, 15% double adenoma, and 13% hyperplasia. When US suggested single-gland disease (n = 842), MIBI was concordant in 82.5%, discordant and false in 8%, negative in 7%, and discordant but correct in 2.5%. When US suggested multigland disease (n = 68), MIBI was concordant in 47%, discordant and false in 41%, and negative in 12%. When US was negative (n = 90), MIBI was positive and correct in 43%, negative in 31%, and positive but false in 26%. Surgeon-performed neck US identified unrecognized thyroid nodules in 326 patients (33%), which led to fine-needle aspiration biopsy in 161 (49%) patients and thyroid surgery in 103 (32%) patients, with a final diagnosis of thyroid cancer in 24 (7%) patients. Conclusion. Our results show that MIBI provides additional useful information in only a minority of patients with a positive US in PHP. Nevertheless, MIBI benefits about half of patients with a negative US. Because one-third of this patient population has unrecognized thyroid nodules as well, we propose that the most cost-effective algorithm would be to do US first and reserve MIBI for US-negative cases.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据