ABSTRACT: Minimally invasive parathyroid surgery with intraoperative parathyroid hormone testing has been reported to be as successful as a bilateral operation. This study aimed to determine whether the histologic findings and outcomes differ in patients with primary sporadic hyperparathyroidism treated by a focal or a bilateral parathyroid exploration with intraoperative parathyroid hormone testing. To make the two groups comparable all patients had a solitary parathyroid adenoma identified preoperatively.
Eighty unselected patients with primary hyperparathyroidism and a single abnormal parathyroid gland identified preoperatively by sestamibi scanning or ultrasonography were included in this study. All patients had intraoperative parathyroid hormone testing.
Forty-five patients had standard bilateral neck explorations and 35 patients had focal neck explorations. In the bilateral neck exploration group a single adenoma was found in 38 patients (84%), a double adenoma in 3 patients (7%), hyperplasia in 3 patients (7%), and carcinoma in 1 patient (2%). In contrast, a single adenoma was identified in all patients in the focal neck exploration group. Sestamibi scanning and intraoperative parathyroid hormone assay were accurate in 87% and 84%, respectively, in the bilateral neck exploration group and in 96.9% and 94.3%, respectively, in the focal neck exploration group. All patients were normocalcemic (mean followup 17 months).
Patients with primary hyperparathyroidism having a bilateral exploration had about a 15% higher rate of multiple parathyroid tumors than did patient having a focal approach. Despite this observation all patients were normocalcemic postoperatively. This suggests that either some histologically abnormal parathyroid glands do not function or there will be recurrences in patients treated by a focused approach. Longterm followup will be necessary to determine whether patients treated by focal neck exploration will develop recurrent primary hyperparathyroidism.
Journal of the American College of Surgeons 05/2003; 196(4):535-40. · 4.55 Impact Factor