Primary hyperparathyroidism surgical management since the introduction of minimally invasive parathyroidectomy: Mayo Clinic experience.
ABSTRACT Minimally invasive parathyroidectomy (MIP) for primary hyperparathyroidism (HPT) has equal cure and recurrence rates as standard cervical exploration. Changes in the management of primary HPT have occurred since introducing MIP including localization, anesthesia, intraoperative parathyroid hormone monitoring, and indications for parathyroidectomy.
Cohort analysis of 1361 consecutive patients with primary HPT operated on at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn, from June 1998 through March 2004. Mean follow-up, 25 months.
Tertiary referral center.
One thousand three hundred sixty-one patients operated on for primary HPT, excluding 160 patients who were reoperated on.
Standard cervical exploration MIP.
Cure, recurrence, localization, anesthesia, hospitalization, intraoperative parathyroid hormone level monitoring, contraindications to MIP, surgical indications, assessment of osteoporosis and osteopenia, postoperative patient assessment of general patient health, and operative satisfaction.
Cure of primary HPT for both conventional exploration and MIP was 97%; only 1 patient who underwent MIP had a potential recurrence. Imaging sensitivity and positive predictive values were as follows: sestamibi scintigraphy, 86% and 93%; ultrasonography, 61% and 87%, respectively. Usage of general vs local anesthesia with intravenous sedation was 46% and 49%, respectively, in patients w ho underwent MIP; 46% were dismissed as outpatients, 49% had single-night stays. The accuracy of intraoperative parathyroid hormone level monitoring was as follows: 98% (8% had true-negative results); the frequency of multiple gland disease was 13%. Accounting for causes precluding MIP, an estimated 60% to 70% of all patients would be eligible for MIP. By preoperative assessment, 79% had osteoporosis-osteopenia; 58% with postoperative bone mineral density measurements were improved. More than 85% were satisfied with the results of their operation.
With high-quality localization and intraoperative parathyroid hormone level monitoring, MIP can be performed with equal cure rates as standard cervical exploration, with no present evidence of delayed recurrence.
- SourceAvailable from: David Goldenberg[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Patients with primary hyperparathyroidism routinely undergo preoperative imaging to localize the abnormal gland to facilitate a guided parathyroidectomy. These techniques include neck ultrasound (US), dual phase planar technetium-99 m (99mTC) sestamibi (MIBI) scans, single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), combined SPECT/CT, and four dimensional CT scans (4D CT). Despite appropriate preoperative imaging, non-localization of abnormal glands does occur. This study aims to determine whether non-localization is the result of radiologic interpretive error or a representation of a subset of truly non-localizing parathyroid adenomas.Materials and methodsA retrospective study was performed; two senior radiologists reinterpreted the preoperative imaging (US and MIBI scans) of 30 patients with initially non-localizing studies. All patients underwent parathyroidectomy for primary hyperparathyroidism at a tertiary referral center. Both radiologists were blinded to the scores of his colleague. The results were compared for inter-reader reliability using Cohen’s kappa test.ResultsTwenty-nine of thirty nuclear studies were found to be negative on reinterpretation. The readers agreed in 86.67% of their observations, with a kappa (κ) value of 0.706 (SE = ± 0.131, 95% confidence interval for κ = 0.449–0.962). One of eighteen ultrasounds had positive localizations on reexamination, however, the inter-observer agreement was only 55.6%, with a kappa value of 0.351 (SE = ± 0.139, and 95% confidence interval for κ = 0.080–0.623). Overall, no statistically significant difference in preoperative and retrospective interpretation was found.Conclusion This study identifies a subset of parathyroid adenomas that do not localize on preoperative imaging despite sound radiographic evaluation.American Journal of Otolaryngology 11/2014; · 1.08 Impact Factor