Meei J Yeung1, Jonathan W Serpell. 1. Breast, Endocrine and Surgical Oncology Unit, Frankston Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive parathyroidectomy (MIP) is only possible if preoperative localization studies accurately identify the abnormal parathyroid tissue. The aim of the present paper was to evaluate the accuracy of these studies in our geographical region and the consequences on MIP. METHODS: A Filemaker Pro database was designed and a retrospective analysis was carried out on the last 50 parathyroidectomies. RESULTS: There were a total of 49 patients who underwent parathyroidectomy; with one patient having two operations. Forty-nine preoperative ultrasound localization studies were performed. Ultrasound sensitivity of correct localization of abnormal parathyroids was 41% with a false positive rate of 25%. Twenty-two sestamibi scans identified 14 abnormal parathyroids. Sestamibi scanning had a sensitivity of 32% for correct localization and a false positive rate of 32%. There were 16 different radiologists or nuclear medicine physicians involved with the nuclear medicine scans, and 22 different radiologists involved in the preoperative ultrasound scans. Forty-seven patients were cured of hyperparathyroidism after a primary operation, with a total of 48 patients in all being cured following re-exploration. One patient was lost to follow up. The success of primary exploration was therefore 96% and following re-exploration this increased to 98%. CONCLUSION: We found preoperative localization studies to have low sensitivities and high false positive rates. To move successfully towards MIP, we need to identify a radiologist with a special interest in localization studies to achieve greater accuracy.
BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive parathyroidectomy (MIP) is only possible if preoperative localization studies accurately identify the abnormal parathyroid tissue. The aim of the present paper was to evaluate the accuracy of these studies in our geographical region and the consequences on MIP. METHODS: A Filemaker Pro database was designed and a retrospective analysis was carried out on the last 50 parathyroidectomies. RESULTS: There were a total of 49 patients who underwent parathyroidectomy; with one patient having two operations. Forty-nine preoperative ultrasound localization studies were performed. Ultrasound sensitivity of correct localization of abnormal parathyroids was 41% with a false positive rate of 25%. Twenty-two sestamibi scans identified 14 abnormal parathyroids. Sestamibi scanning had a sensitivity of 32% for correct localization and a false positive rate of 32%. There were 16 different radiologists or nuclear medicine physicians involved with the nuclear medicine scans, and 22 different radiologists involved in the preoperative ultrasound scans. Forty-seven patients were cured of hyperparathyroidism after a primary operation, with a total of 48 patients in all being cured following re-exploration. One patient was lost to follow up. The success of primary exploration was therefore 96% and following re-exploration this increased to 98%. CONCLUSION: We found preoperative localization studies to have low sensitivities and high false positive rates. To move successfully towards MIP, we need to identify a radiologist with a special interest in localization studies to achieve greater accuracy.