Ospina, Naykky Singh

AbstractBackgroundParathyroidectomy is a definitive treatment for primary hyperparathyroidism. Patients contemplating this intervention will benefit from knowledge regarding the expected outcomes and potential risks of the currently available surgical options.PurposeTo appraise and summarize the available evidence regarding benefits and harms of minimally invasive parathyroidectomy (MIP) and bilateral neck exploration (BNE).Data sourcesA comprehensive search of multiple databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus) from each database’s inception to September 2014 was performed.Study selectionEligible studies evaluated patients with primary hyperparathyroidism undergoing MIP or BNE.Data extractionReviewers working independently and in duplicate extracted data and assessed the risk of bias.Data synthesisWe identified 82 observational studies and 6 randomized trials at moderate risk of bias. Most of them reported outcomes after MIP (n = 71). Using random‐effects models to pool results across studies, the cure rate was 98 % (95 % CI 97–98 %, I2 = 10 %) with BNE and 97 % (95 % CI 96–98 %, I2 = 86 %) with MIP. Hypocalcemia occurred in 14 % (95 % CI 10–17 % I2 = 93 %) of the BNE cases and in 2.3 % (95 % CI 1.6–3.1 %, I2 = 87 %) with MIP (P < 0.001). There was a statistically significant lower risk of laryngeal nerve injury with MIP (0.3 %) than with BNE (0.9 %), but similar risk of infection (0.5 vs. 0.5 %) and mortality (0.1 vs. 0.5 %).LimitationsThe available evidence, mostly observational, is at moderate risk of bias, and limited by indirect comparisons and inconsistency for some outcomes (cure rate, hypocalcemia).ConclusionMIP and BNE are both effective surgical techniques for the treatment of primary hyperparathyroidism. The safety profile of MIP appears superior to BNE (lower rate of hypocalcemia and recurrent laryngeal nerve injury).

Background: The best treatment option for patients with Graves' disease (GD) depends on each person's situation and how the differences between the treatment options matter to them in bringing resolution to their illness. The objective of this study was to develop and test an encounter decision tool (GD Choice) for patients and clinicians to engage in shared decision making about the treatment of GD. Methods: GD Choice was developed using an iterative process based on the principles of interaction design and participatory action research. To evaluate the impact of the tool, a controlled before–after study was conducted, assessing the use of GD Choice versus usual care (UC). Results: Sixty-eight patients were enrolled, 37 to UC and 31 to GD Choice. At baseline, the groups were similar. Treatment discussion length was similar in both arms. After their visit, patients in both groups had similar knowledge about the options, except for GD Choice patients knowing significantly more about the complications of treatment (correctly answered by 83% vs. 55%; p = 0.04). Compared with UC, patients in the GD Choice arm had greater involvement in decision making observed on video recordings of clinical encounters (mean OPTION scale score, 35% vs. 30%; p = 0.02), but reported similar levels of decisional comfort and participation in shared decision making. Conclusions: GD Choice increases engagement in the decision-making process and knowledge regarding intervention complications without increasing the length of consultation. These promising results support the conduct of a randomized trial of GD Choice versus UC in a large multicenter trial.

SummaryObjectiveTo report the prevalence of parathyroid carcinoma (PC) in patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) and review of the literature.BackgroundPrimary hyperparathyroidism (PHP) is the most common manifestation of MEN1. The occurrence of PC in patients with MEN1 is rare and the literature regarding the clinical manifestations – including the prevalence of the disease – is scarce.ContextSingle tertiary care centre experience from 1977 to 2013.DesignElectronic search of the medical records to identify a cohort of patients with MEN1. Literature review based on current case reports.PatientsSingle case of PC in a cohort of 348 patients with MEN1. Ten cases of PC in patients with MEN1 reported in the literature.MeasurementClinical features of PC in patients with MEN1.ResultsThe prevalence of PC in 348 patients with MEN1 was found to be 0·28% (95% CI, 0–1·4%). Based on the current published cases of PC in patients with MEN1, 54·5% were women, mean age at diagnosis was 48·3 years, and the serum PTH concentrations at least four times the upper limit of the reference range in 73% of the cases.ConclusionPC in patients with MEN 1 is rare with a prevalence of 0·28%, and the clinical features are similar to PC in patients without MEN1.