OBJECTIVES: Compare surgeon-performed ultrasound versus sestamibi for preoperative parathyroid adenoma localization. STUDY DESIGN: Single-institutional cohort. METHODS: One hundred six consecutive patients undergoing parathyroidectomy at an academic institution between 2004 to 2005 were included. Of those, 103 underwent both surgeon-performed ultrasound and sestamibi-Tc99m localization preoperatively. Primary outcome is sensitivity for adenoma localization to correct quadrant (right vs. left, superior vs. inferior). RESULTS: Hypercalcemia resolved in 97% of patients. Sensitivities for correct quadrant localization for ultrasound versus sestamibi were 87% versus 58% (P < .001). Specificities were 95%. Positive and negative predictive values were 85% versus 78% and 96% versus 87%, respectively. Combined sensitivity was 93%. Sensitivities for correct side localization were 91% and 74% (P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound appears more sensitive than sestamibi for localization to correct quadrant or side when performed in-office by the author in this cohort.
OBJECTIVES: Compare surgeon-performed ultrasound versus sestamibi for preoperative parathyroid adenoma localization. STUDY DESIGN: Single-institutional cohort. METHODS: One hundred six consecutive patients undergoing parathyroidectomy at an academic institution between 2004 to 2005 were included. Of those, 103 underwent both surgeon-performed ultrasound and sestamibi-Tc99m localization preoperatively. Primary outcome is sensitivity for adenoma localization to correct quadrant (right vs. left, superior vs. inferior). RESULTS:Hypercalcemia resolved in 97% of patients. Sensitivities for correct quadrant localization for ultrasound versus sestamibi were 87% versus 58% (P < .001). Specificities were 95%. Positive and negative predictive values were 85% versus 78% and 96% versus 87%, respectively. Combined sensitivity was 93%. Sensitivities for correct side localization were 91% and 74% (P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasound appears more sensitive than sestamibi for localization to correct quadrant or side when performed in-office by the author in this cohort.
Authors: B Griffith; H Chaudhary; G Mahmood; A M Carlin; E Peterson; M Singer; S C Patel Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-09-10 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Brian R Untch; Mohamed Abdelgadir Adam; Randall P Scheri; Kyla M Bennett; Darshana Dixit; Cynthia Webb; George S Leight; John A Olson Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: S Tresoldi; G Pompili; R Maiolino; N Flor; L De Pasquale; A Bastagli; F Sardanelli; G Cornalba Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2009-09-22 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Patsy S H Soon; Leigh W Delbridge; Mark S Sywak; Beverley M Barraclough; Pam Edhouse; Stan B Sidhu Journal: World J Surg Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Milou E Noltes; Annemieke M Coester; Anouk N A van der Horst-Schrivers; Bart Dorgelo; Liesbeth Jansen; Walter Noordzij; Clara Lemstra; Adrienne H Brouwers; Schelto Kruijff Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2017-01-14 Impact factor: 3.445