Primary Hyperparathyroidism Patients with Positive Preoperative Sestamibi Scan and Negative Ultrasound Are More Likely to Have Posteriorly Located Upper Gland Adenomas (PLUGs)

BackgroundStandard preoperative imaging for primary hyperparathyroidism usually includes sestamibi scanning (MIBI) and ultrasound (US). In a subset of patients with a positive MIBI and a negative US, we hypothesize that the parathyroid adenomas are more likely to be located posteriorly in the neck, where anatomically they are more difficult to detect by US.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed the records of 661 patients treated for primary hyperparathyroidism between 2004 and 2009 at a tertiary referral center. We included patients who for their first operation had a MIBI that localized a single lesion in the neck and an US that found no parathyroid adenoma. We excluded patients with persistent or recurrent hyperparathyroidism, and patients with MIBIs that were negative, that had more than one positive focus, or that had foci outside of the neck. Sixty-six cases were included in the final analysis.ResultsA total of 54 patients (83%) had a single adenoma, 4 (6%) had double adenomas, and 7 (11%) had hyperplasia. Thirty-three patients (51%) had a single upper gland adenoma; 19 of these (58%) were posteriorly located upper gland adenomas (PLUGs). PLUGs occurred more often on the right side than on the left (P = 0.048, Fisher's test). PLUGs were also larger than other single adenomas (mean 1.85 vs. 1.48 cm, P = 0.021, t-test). Seventy-six percent of patients successfully underwent a unilateral or focused exploration. Six patients (9%) had persistent disease, which is double our group's overall average (4-5%).ConclusionsPrimary hyperparathyroid patients with preoperative positive MIBI and negative US are more likely to have PLUGs

Hepatitis B virus screening in contacts of blood donors with antibodies against core protein (anti-HBc), but without surface antigen (HBsAg)

To increase blood safety Brazil introduced screening for anti-HBc among blood donors in 1993. There was a decrease in the hepatitis B virus (HBV) transmission, but this measure identified a great number of HBsAg-negative, anti-HBc-positive donors. Surveillance policy determines that contacts of HBV carriers should be screened to HBV markers, but there is no recommendation about how to guide contacts of HBsAg-negative, anti-HBc-positive donors. Aiming to evaluate whether the contacts of this group are at greater risk for HBV infection, a cross-sectional study was performed to compare prevalence of HBV infection between contacts of HBsAg-positive blood donors (group I) and contacts of HBsAg-negative, anti-HBc-positive donors (group II). Contacts were submitted to a questionnaire and blood tests for HBV markers. In group I (n = 143), 53 (37.1%) were anti-HBc-positive and 11 (7.7%) were HBsAg-positive. In group II (n = 111), there were 9 and 0.9%, respectively. HBV exposure was associated with group I, sexual activity, blood transfusion, being one of the donor's parents, and living for more than ten years with the donor. Regarding the families as sample units, it was more common to find at least one member with HBV markers (p < 0.05) among the families of group I compared to group II. Contacts of HBsAg-negative, anti-HBc-positive individuals presented a much lower risk of having already been exposed to HBV and there is no need to screen them for HBV in low to moderate prevalence populations