Jeremy C F Ng1, Weining Wang2, Min-Jia Chua1, Mui-Suan Tan1, Ngian Chye Tan3, Khee-Chee Soo3, Hiang Khoon Tan3, N Gopalakrishna Iyer4. 1. Head and Neck Service, Department of Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore. 2. Head and Neck Service, Department of Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Centre, Singapore. 3. Head and Neck Service, Department of Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore; Head and Neck Service, Department of Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Centre, Singapore. 4. Head and Neck Service, Department of Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore; Head and Neck Service, Department of Surgical Oncology, National Cancer Centre, Singapore. Electronic address: gopaliyer@yahoo.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Secondary hyperparathyroidism is a common clinical problem seen in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) undergoing hemodialysis. In patients with severe persistent hyperparathyroidism, parathyroidectomies are often required. OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of total parathyroidectomy followed by subcutaneous injection of parathyroid autograft compared with surgical implantation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 132 patients with confirmed diagnoses of ESRD treated with hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis, with secondary hyperparathyroidism who had undergone total parathyroidectomies. Clinical and biochemical characteristics, including preoperative and postoperative intact parathyroid hormone levels were recorded and compared between patients who had undergone subcutaneous injection or surgical implantation of autograft. RESULTS: From February 2005 to February 2012, 132 patients who had undergone total parathyroidectomies were included in our study. To compare the techniques of subcutaneous injection and surgical implantation, pre- and postoperative biochemistry was recorded and analyzed. Preoperative biochemistry was comparable in both groups. However, autograft recovery was significantly faster in the group with subcutaneous injection compared with surgical implantation (P = .03). Median time to parathyroid recovery was 2 months for injection compared with 9 months for implantation. There was no remarkable difference in the recurrence rates between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Subcutaneous injection of parathyroid tissue is a feasible and simple alternative to the more commonly used method of surgical implantation.
BACKGROUND:Secondary hyperparathyroidism is a common clinical problem seen in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) undergoing hemodialysis. In patients with severe persistent hyperparathyroidism, parathyroidectomies are often required. OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of total parathyroidectomy followed by subcutaneous injection of parathyroid autograft compared with surgical implantation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 132 patients with confirmed diagnoses of ESRD treated with hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis, with secondary hyperparathyroidism who had undergone total parathyroidectomies. Clinical and biochemical characteristics, including preoperative and postoperative intact parathyroid hormone levels were recorded and compared between patients who had undergone subcutaneous injection or surgical implantation of autograft. RESULTS: From February 2005 to February 2012, 132 patients who had undergone total parathyroidectomies were included in our study. To compare the techniques of subcutaneous injection and surgical implantation, pre- and postoperative biochemistry was recorded and analyzed. Preoperative biochemistry was comparable in both groups. However, autograft recovery was significantly faster in the group with subcutaneous injection compared with surgical implantation (P = .03). Median time to parathyroid recovery was 2 months for injection compared with 9 months for implantation. There was no remarkable difference in the recurrence rates between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Subcutaneous injection of parathyroid tissue is a feasible and simple alternative to the more commonly used method of surgical implantation.
Authors: Hae Sang Park; Soo Yeon Jung; Ha Yeong Kim; Du Young Ko; Sung Min Chung; Byeongmoon Jeong; Han Su Kim Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2016-03-19 Impact factor: 2.503