Acta chirurgica Belgica · 2021
Does the intraoperative parathormone monitoring really affect surgical success in primary hyperparathyroidism?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ozdemir Egemen, Ozden Sabri, Tutuncu Tanju, Daglar Gul, Yuksek Yunus Nadi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Surgery is the only curative treatment option for primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT). The intraoperative parathormone (IOPTH) monitoring is recommended to confirm that all pathological glands have been removed. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of IOPTH monitoring on the surgical success of parathyroidectomy performed for PHPT.
METHODS: The demographic, biochemical, operative and pathological data of patients who underwent parathyroidectomy for PHPT in a single institute over a three-year period were retrospectively analyzed.
RESULTS: The total number of patients included in the study was 182. The IOPTH monitoring had been performed in 92 patients (50.5%). The IOPTH monitoring had a clinical accuracy of 89.2%, sensitivity of 89.8%, and specificity of 75%. The rate of surgical success was 95.7% in the group with IOPTH monitoring and 91.1% in the group without this monitoring (p = .21). Of the 40 patients who underwent minimally invasive parathyroidectomy (MIP), 25 patients had IOPTH monitoring, and the surgery was successful for all these patients (100%). Surgical success was achieved in 14 (93.3%) patients who underwent MIP without IOPTH monitoring (p = .37).
CONCLUSION: The IOPTH monitoring is a reliable test with high accuracy. The lack of IOPTH monitoring may result in lower than acceptable surgical success rates. Even though preoperative localization studies are compatible with surgical findings, the IOPTH monitoring should also be undertaken, especially in patients scheduled for MIP for PHPT.
METHODS: The demographic, biochemical, operative and pathological data of patients who underwent parathyroidectomy for PHPT in a single institute over a three-year period were retrospectively analyzed.
RESULTS: The total number of patients included in the study was 182. The IOPTH monitoring had been performed in 92 patients (50.5%). The IOPTH monitoring had a clinical accuracy of 89.2%, sensitivity of 89.8%, and specificity of 75%. The rate of surgical success was 95.7% in the group with IOPTH monitoring and 91.1% in the group without this monitoring (p = .21). Of the 40 patients who underwent minimally invasive parathyroidectomy (MIP), 25 patients had IOPTH monitoring, and the surgery was successful for all these patients (100%). Surgical success was achieved in 14 (93.3%) patients who underwent MIP without IOPTH monitoring (p = .37).
CONCLUSION: The IOPTH monitoring is a reliable test with high accuracy. The lack of IOPTH monitoring may result in lower than acceptable surgical success rates. Even though preoperative localization studies are compatible with surgical findings, the IOPTH monitoring should also be undertaken, especially in patients scheduled for MIP for PHPT.