Factors contributing to unintentional parathyroidectomy during thyroid surgery.

Unintentional parathyroidectomy during thyroid surgery has an incidence ranging between 1% and 31% across institutions. Many studies have identified malignancy and central neck dissection as risk factors for losing parathyroid glands, but few studies have evaluated the impact of other factors such as lymphocytic thyroiditis, hyperthyroidism, or concomitant primary hyperparathyroidism. The purpose of this study was to investigate which factors contribute to parathyroid loss during thyroid surgery. Charts of 269 patients undergoing thyroid surgery at a tertiary care medical center from 2010 to 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Sixty-six patients (24.5%) experienced unintentional parathyroidectomy. Bivariate analysis showed no significant differences in patient characteristics. Patients with unintentional parathyroid removal had a significantly smaller largest thyroid nodule size (P = 0.002), higher rate of central neck dissection (30.3% vs 7.9%, P < 0.0001), and higher rate of malignancy (50% vs 36.0%, P = 0.04). Multivariable analysis showed that the strongest risk factor for unintentional parathyroidectomy was central neck dissection (P = 0.0008; odds ratio 4.72, confidence interval 1.91-11.71). In conclusion, central neck dissection for thyroid malignancy is the strongest risk factor for unintentional thyroidectomy. The presence of concomitant primary hyperparathyroidism, lymphocytic thyroiditis, or hyperthyroidism did not appear to increase the risk of unintentional parathyroidectomy.

Endoluminal Vacuum Therapy: How I Do It.

Perforations and leaks of the gastrointestinal tract are difficult to manage and are associated with high morbidity and mortality. Recently, endoscopic approaches have been applied with varying degrees of success. Most recently, the use of endoluminal vacuum therapy has been used with high success rates in decreasing both morbidity and mortality. Under an IRB-approved prospective registry that we started in July 2013, we have been using endoluminal vacuum therapy to treat a variety of leaks throughout the GI tract. The procedure uses an endosponge connected to a nasogastric tube that is endoscopically guided into a fistula cavity in order to facilitate healing, obtain source control, and aid in reperfusion of the adjacent tissue with debridement. Endoluminal vacuum therapy has been used on all patients in the registry. Overall success rate for healing the leak or fistula is 95% in the esophagus, 83% in the stomach, 100% in the small bowel, and 60% of colorectal cases. The purpose of this report is to review the history of endoluminal wound vacuum therapy, identify appropriate patient selection criteria, and highlight "pearls" of the procedure. This article is written in the context of our own clinical experience, with a primary focus on a "How I Do It" technical description.

Primary and Rescue Endoluminal Vacuum Therapy in the Management of Esophageal Perforations and Leaks.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the efficacy of primary and rescue endoluminal vacuum (EVAC) therapy in the treatment of esophageal perforations and leaks. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of a prospectively gathered, Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved database of EVAC therapy patients at our center from July 2013 to September 2016. RESULTS: In all, 13 patients were treated for esophageal perforations or leaks. Etiologies included iatrogenic injury (n = 8), anastomotic leak (n = 2), Boerhaave syndrome (n = 1), and bronchoesophageal fistula (n = 2). In total, 10 patients underwent primary treatment and three were treated with rescue therapy. Mean Perforation Severity Scores (PSSs) in the primary and rescue treatment groups were 7 and 10, respectively. Average defect size was 2.4 (range: 0.5-6) cm. The rescue group had a shorter mean time to defect closure (25 vs. 33 days). In all, 12 of 13 defects healed. One death occurred following the implementation of comfort care. One therapy-specific complication occurred. Hospital length of stay (LOS) was longer in the rescue group (72 vs. 53 days); however, the intensive care unit (ICU) duration was similar between groups. Totally, 10 patients (83%) resumed an oral diet after successful defect closure. CONCLUSION: Utilized as either a primary or rescue therapy, EVAC therapy appears to be beneficial in the management of esophageal perforations or leaks.

Use of a novel technique to manage gastrointestinal leaks with endoluminal negative pressure: a single institution experience.

BACKGROUND: Perforations and anastomotic leaks of the gastrointestinal tract are severe complications, which carry high morbidity and mortality and management of these is a multi-disciplinary challenge. The use of endoluminal vacuum (EVAC) therapy has recently proven to be a useful technique to manage these complications. We report our institution's experience with this novel technique in the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of an IRB approved registry of all EVAC therapy patients from July 2013 to December 2016. A total of 55 patients were examined and 49 patients were eligible for inclusion: 15 esophageal, 21 gastric, 3 small bowel, and 10 colorectal defects. The primary endpoint was closure rate of the GI tract defect with EVAC therapy. RESULTS: Fifteen (100%) esophageal defects closed with EVAC therapy. Mean duration of therapy was 27 days consisting of an average of 6 endosponge changes every 4.8 days. Eighteen (86%) gastric defects closed with EVAC therapy. Mean duration of therapy was 38 days with a mean of 9 endosponge changes every 5.3 days. Three (100%) small bowel defects closed with EVAC therapy. Mean duration of therapy was 13.7 days with a mean of 2.7 endosponge changes every 4.4 days. Six (60%) colorectal defects closed with EVAC therapy. Mean duration of therapy was 23.2 days, consisting of a mean of 6 endosponge changes every 4.0 days. There were two deaths, which were not directly related to EVAC therapy and occurred outside the measured 30-day mortality. CONCLUSION: Our experience demonstrates that EVAC therapy is feasible and effective for the management of gastrointestinal perforations/leaks throughout the GI tract and can be considered as a safe alternative to surgical intervention in select cases.