The role of preoperative ultrasonography, computed tomography, and sestamibi scintigraphy localization in secondary hyperparathyroidism.
10.4174/astr.2015.89.6.300
- Author:
Jae Bok LEE
1
;
Woo Young KIM
;
Yu Mi LEE
Author Information
1. Department of Surgery, Korea University Guro Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Hyperparathyroidism;
Ultrasonography;
X-ray computed tomography;
Technetium Tc 99m Sestamibi
- MeSH:
Humans;
Hyperparathyroidism;
Hyperparathyroidism, Secondary*;
Parathyroid Glands;
Parathyroid Hormone;
Parathyroidectomy;
Radionuclide Imaging*;
Recurrence;
Technetium Tc 99m Sestamibi;
Tomography, X-Ray Computed;
Ultrasonography*
- From:Annals of Surgical Treatment and Research
2015;89(6):300-305
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: The role of preoperative localization studies is controversial in surgery of secondary hyperparathyroidism (sHPT). The aim of study was to evaluate the accuracy of preoperative ultrasonography (USG), CT, and 99mTc sestamibi scintigraphy (MIBI) in localizing enlarged parathyroid glands and to find the impact of correct localization in successful parathyroidectomy. METHODS: We compared operative findings with the preoperative localization of ultrasonography, computerized tomography and sestamibi scintigraphy in 109 patients with sHPT and identified well-visualized locations of abnormal parathyroid glands by evaluating the sensitivity of each imaging study with regard to typical locations of glands. We investigated the effect of preoperative imaging localization on the surgical outcomes by measuring the intraoperative parathyroid hormone (ioPTH) decrement for positive or negative imaging localization. RESULTS: USG (91.5%) had the highest sensitivity and MIBI (56.1%) had the lowest among 3 modalities. The sensitivity of combined USG and CT (95.0%) was the highest among combined 2 modalities. The combination of all 3 modalities (95.4%) had the highest sensitivity among the combinations of modalities. The reduction of ioPTH in patients with positive imaging localization (86.6%) was greater than negative imaging localization (84.2%), with no significant difference (P = 0.586). The recurrence or persistence of sHPT was not correlated with preoperative imaging localization (19 patients in negative, 16 in positive; P = 0.14). CONCLUSION: Preoperative imaging localization contributed to surgical success but not to surgical outcomes. The combination of ioPTH measurement with imaging localization might be valuable for better surgical results in sHPT.
