In the early 1990s, when George Irvin reported his firstresults about the use of a quick intraoperative parathyroidhormone assay (ioPTHa) during surgery for primaryhyperparathyroidism (PHPT), this innovative instrumentappeared to be an extremely promising way to providesurgeons with reliable guidance while performing a para-thyroidectomy for PHPT [1]. In fact, the method had anacceptable certainty of confirming in most patients that allof the hyperfunctioning parathyroid tissue in the neck hadbeen removed, to the extent of defining it as a ‘‘biochem-ical frozen section.’’ Some of the limits of the techniquebecame evident quite soon, because a limited but signifi-cant number of false-positive and false-negative resultsseemed to be unavoidable in every series that was reported,adding some uncertainty about the real effectiveness of thetool [2].The main problem was how to determine the cutoff forthe PTH drop rate and the timing of the blood sample to betested. The choice of these two data can heavily conditionthe balance between a false-positive and a false-negativeresult [3]. These limits can influence even more the out-comes in patients with secondary HPT (SHPT) and tertiaryHPT, where the cutoff seems to be more difficult todetermine, for several reasons [4–6].Correctly, Conzo et al. [7] quoted several proposedcutoff values in their report as a percentage of the initialvalue or as an absolute value. Also, the timing variedgreatly from series to series. The choice by these authors tochoose a 20-min cutoff seems reasonable. Even though thehalf-life of this hormone is limited to very few minutes, itsvalues at the beginning of the operation are much higherthan in PHPT, and because of the manipulation, whichinvolves all of the glands, last much longer. Thus, con-sidering a time consistently longer than 10 min shouldguarantee better results. For the same reason, it is moreimportant to establish a percentage of the PTH drop withrespect to the initial value rather than its absolute value. Infact, if all the parathyroid tissue were removed, PTHshould be, presumably, 0; but this never happens.Nevertheless, a really ‘‘total’’ parathyroidectomy ismandatory, and by then, the use of ioPTHa could signifi-cantly modify the surgical strategy. It is well known,indeed, that removal of four enlarged parathyroid glands isnot sufficient to consider the operation successful: a fifthand even a sixth gland can be present in these patients insignificantly higher percentages than in patients affected byPHPT [4], thus inducing the surgeon to continue the neckexploration. In these patients, an ablation of the upperhorns of the thymus on both sides would be highlyadvisable.However, even if the expected drop does not occur after20 min, this does not necessarily mean that cure has notbeen achieved, because the PTH level might decreasemuch later than 20 min after surgery. Because a supernu-merary gland might be in the mediastinum, an extensiveand time-consuming neck exploration is sometimesunreasonable. For similar reasons, most surgeons do notadvocate the use of sophisticated and costly preoperativeimaging studies, and in any event, these cannot substitutefor the experience of a surgeon with a high volume ofparathyroidectomies [8]. Despite these limits, the use ofioPTHa might help an experienced surgeon in tailoring hisor her operative strategy.The possible prognostic value of ioPTHa to predict apossible hypoparathyroidism after surgery, which comes
Read full abstract