Head & neck · 2018
Efficacy of calcium excretion and calcium/creatinine clearance ratio in the differential diagnosis of familial hypocalciuric hypercalcemia and primary hyperparathyroidism.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Bhangu Jagdeep Singh, Selberherr Andreas, Brammen Lindsay, Scheuba Christian, Riss Philipp
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Twenty-four-hour renal calcium-excretion (CE) and calcium/creatinine-clearance-ratio (CCCR), respectively, are widely used to rule out familial hypocalciuric hypercalcemia (FHH) in patients with suspected primary hyperparathyroidism before surgery. The aim was to evaluate the practicability of CE compared to CCCR.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed biochemical parameters, surgical treatment, gene mutation results, and long-term follow-up data of 198 patients (including 14 patients with FHH) and the discriminative power of CE and CCCR.
RESULTS: Twenty four patients (12.1%) had a low CE and 35 patients (20.2%) had a CCCR indicating FHH. However, eight patients with FHH (57.1%) had a normal or increased CE. Correspondingly, only eight cases of FHH (57.1%) were correctly predicted by CCCR. Sensitivity/specificity were 42.9%/89.9% for CE and 64.3%/79.9% for CCCR, showing no statistical differences (P = 0.482) between both methods.
CONCLUSION: Neither CE nor CCCR was able to distinguish between PHPT and FHH but may help to narrow down potential FHH patients.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed biochemical parameters, surgical treatment, gene mutation results, and long-term follow-up data of 198 patients (including 14 patients with FHH) and the discriminative power of CE and CCCR.
RESULTS: Twenty four patients (12.1%) had a low CE and 35 patients (20.2%) had a CCCR indicating FHH. However, eight patients with FHH (57.1%) had a normal or increased CE. Correspondingly, only eight cases of FHH (57.1%) were correctly predicted by CCCR. Sensitivity/specificity were 42.9%/89.9% for CE and 64.3%/79.9% for CCCR, showing no statistical differences (P = 0.482) between both methods.
CONCLUSION: Neither CE nor CCCR was able to distinguish between PHPT and FHH but may help to narrow down potential FHH patients.