4.6 Article

Timing of symptom improvement after parathyroidectomy for primary hyperparathyroidism

Journal

SURGERY
Volume 154, Issue 6, Pages 1463-1469

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2013.09.005

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. University of Wisconsin
  2. Physician Scientist Training in Career Medicine grant
  3. National Institutes of Health [T32 CA009614-22]
  4. Doris Duke Charitable Foundation [2011119]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. The timing of symptom improvement after parathyroidectomy for primary hyperparathyroidism (PHPT) has not been well characterized. Methods. This prospective study involved administering a questionnaire to patients with PHPT who underwent curative parathyroidectomy over an 11-month period. The questionnaire evaluated the frequency of 18 symptoms of PHPT on a 5-point Likert scale and was administered preoperatively and 1 week, 6 weeks, and 6 months postoperatively. Results. Of 197 eligible patients, 132 (67%) participated in the study. The questionnaires were completed at a rate of 91%, 92%, and 86% at 1 week, 6 weeks, and 6 months postoperatively, respectively. The most commonly reported preoperative symptoms were fatigue (98%), muscle aches (89%), and bone/joint pain (87%). Improvement in symptom severity occurred across all symptoms and was separated into three categories based on the timing of improvement. Fatigue and bone/joint pain demonstrated Immediate Improvement (>50% of patients reporting improvement by post-operative week I), whereas the majority of symptoms showed peak improvement at 6 weeks (Delayed Improvement). Symptoms categorized as Continuous Improvement were those showing progressive improvement up to 6 months postoperatively (polydipsia, headaches, and nausea/vomiting). Conclusion. Symptom improvement was most prominent 6 weeks postparathyroidectomy, although some symptoms showed continued improvement at 6 months.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available