Qingquan Zhao1, Wenrui Wang2, Xing Yu3, Yong Wang4. 1. Department of Thyroid Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Donghai Road, Quanzhou, 362000, Fujian, China. 2. Department of Thyroid Surgery, Dezhou People's Hospital, Dong Fang Hong West Road, Dezhou, 253000, Shandong, China. 3. Department of Thyroid Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Jiefang Road, Hangzhou, 310009, Zhejiang, China. 4. Department of Thyroid Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Jiefang Road, Hangzhou, 310009, Zhejiang, China. surgwy@zju.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transoral endoscopic parathyroidectomy via vestibular approach (TOEPVA) and total endoscopic parathyroidectomy via areola approach (EPA) are commonly used endoscopic parathyroidectomy approaches. This study compares effectiveness of these approaches with conventional open parathyroidectomy (COP) in relation to safety, associated trauma, and feasibility in the treatment of parathyroid adenoma (PTA). METHODS: We examined patients who had undergone TOEPVA (n = 15), EPA (n = 14), and COP (n = 30). All patients had a pathological diagnosis of PTA. We analyzed operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score, postoperative drainage volume, hospital stay and complications such as changes in parathyroid hormone (PTH) and serum calcium before and after surgery. RESULTS: Clinical variables across the three experimental groups were similar except for patient age. TOEPVA and EPA groups had a higher proportion of young patients than COP group. Operation time for endoscopic group was longer than that of open group, and the longest operation time was recorded in TOEPVA group (P = 0.000). Postoperative VAS score: postoperative pain in patients in the endoscopic group was less than that of patients in the open group on the first day (P = 0.001). Postoperative pain in patients of the endoscopic group was significant on the second day (P = 0.044). Pain experienced by patients in the three groups was the same on the third day after surgery (P = 0.312). Postoperative drainage volume in the endoscopic group was more than that in the open group (P = 0.000). There were no significant differences between intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.089), complications (P = 0.407) and hospital stay (P = 0.389) in TOEPVA, EPA and COP groups. PTH and serum calcium levels in the three experimental groups were considerably lower after surgery (P < 0.05). Tumor recurrence was not recorded in the three groups during a follow-up period of between 3 and 36 months. CONCLUSIONS: TOEPVA and EPA are safe treatment options for PTA. The therapeutic effects of TOEPVA and EPA were similar to those of COP in the treatment of PTA.
BACKGROUND: Transoral endoscopic parathyroidectomy via vestibular approach (TOEPVA) and total endoscopic parathyroidectomy via areola approach (EPA) are commonly used endoscopic parathyroidectomy approaches. This study compares effectiveness of these approaches with conventional open parathyroidectomy (COP) in relation to safety, associated trauma, and feasibility in the treatment of parathyroid adenoma (PTA). METHODS: We examined patients who had undergone TOEPVA (n = 15), EPA (n = 14), and COP (n = 30). All patients had a pathological diagnosis of PTA. We analyzed operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score, postoperative drainage volume, hospital stay and complications such as changes in parathyroid hormone (PTH) and serum calcium before and after surgery. RESULTS: Clinical variables across the three experimental groups were similar except for patient age. TOEPVA and EPA groups had a higher proportion of young patients than COP group. Operation time for endoscopic group was longer than that of open group, and the longest operation time was recorded in TOEPVA group (P = 0.000). Postoperative VAS score: postoperative pain in patients in the endoscopic group was less than that of patients in the open group on the first day (P = 0.001). Postoperative pain in patients of the endoscopic group was significant on the second day (P = 0.044). Pain experienced by patients in the three groups was the same on the third day after surgery (P = 0.312). Postoperative drainage volume in the endoscopic group was more than that in the open group (P = 0.000). There were no significant differences between intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.089), complications (P = 0.407) and hospital stay (P = 0.389) in TOEPVA, EPA and COP groups. PTH and serum calcium levels in the three experimental groups were considerably lower after surgery (P < 0.05). Tumor recurrence was not recorded in the three groups during a follow-up period of between 3 and 36 months. CONCLUSIONS:TOEPVA and EPA are safe treatment options for PTA. The therapeutic effects of TOEPVA and EPA were similar to those of COP in the treatment of PTA.