The Journal of laryngology and otology · 2007
Re-operation for secondary 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.
Debruyne F, Geuens G, Vander Poorten V, Delaere P
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: In cases of re-operation for secondary hyperparathyroidism, to evaluate the extent to which the location of recurrent hyperplasia was predicted by (1) operative data from the first intervention, and (2) pre-operative imaging (before the re-operation).
METHODS: The files of 18 patients undergoing surgery for recurrent secondary hyperparathyroidism were reviewed. The surgical findings were compared both with the report of the initial operation and with the results of pre-operative imaging (i.e. ultrasonography, Mibi scintigraphy or computed tomography).
RESULTS: The location of the recurrent hyperplasia corresponded with the data for the primary intervention in about one-third of patients. There was a partial correlation in one-third of patients, and no correlation at all in one-third. Pre-operative imaging enabled better prediction of the location of recurrent disease.
CONCLUSION: Surgeons should have both sources of information at their disposal when planning a re-intervention for secondary hyperparathyroidism. However, in our series, the predictive value of imaging was superior to that of information deduced from the previous surgical record.
METHODS: The files of 18 patients undergoing surgery for recurrent secondary hyperparathyroidism were reviewed. The surgical findings were compared both with the report of the initial operation and with the results of pre-operative imaging (i.e. ultrasonography, Mibi scintigraphy or computed tomography).
RESULTS: The location of the recurrent hyperplasia corresponded with the data for the primary intervention in about one-third of patients. There was a partial correlation in one-third of patients, and no correlation at all in one-third. Pre-operative imaging enabled better prediction of the location of recurrent disease.
CONCLUSION: Surgeons should have both sources of information at their disposal when planning a re-intervention for secondary hyperparathyroidism. However, in our series, the predictive value of imaging was superior to that of information deduced from the previous surgical record.