Clinical and Economic Evaluation of Ultrasound-Guided Radiofrequency Ablation vs. Parathyroidectomy for Patients with Primary Hyperparathyroidism: A Cohort Study.

RATIONALE AND

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical and economic effects of ultrasound (US)-guided radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with parathyroidectomy (PTX) for primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT).

MATERIALS AND

METHODS

From April 2014 to April 2021, 123 PHPT patients who received US-guided RFA or PTX were studied. Propensity score (PS) matching was used to balance the baseline data of the two groups. The rates of cure, recurrent and persistent PHPT, and complications were compared. A Chinese healthcare system perspective cost minimization analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

After PS matching, 37 patient pairs (1:1) were created for the two groups. Follow-up was 27.2 ± 10.6 months and 28.8 ± 16.1 months for the RFA and PTX groups, respectively. At the last follow-up, there was no evidence of differences regarding clinical cure rate between the two groups (RFA vs. PTX, 91.9% vs. 94.6%, p = 1.000). Recurrent PHPT did not develop in any patient. One patient in each group had persistent PHPT. The incidence of complications and side effects, except postoperative pain (RFA vs. PTX, 16.2% vs. 40.5%, p = 0.020), were no significant difference between the two groups (all, p > 0.05). The incremental cost was -$284.00; thus, RFA was more cost-effective. For patients with employee medical insurance or resident medical insurance, the incremental costs (RFA vs. PTX) were -$391.94 and -$49.43, respectively.

CONCLUSION

There were no significant differences in efficacy and safety between RFA and PTX. As the incremental cost for RFA compared with PTX was negative, RFA may be used as a more cost-effective nonsurgical treatment alternative for PHPT.