Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 10533412

[Borderline primary hyperparathyroidism].

Abstract

The clinical presentation of primary hyperparathyroidism has changed considerably after the application of biochemical autoanalysers. The condition was previously found with characteristic symptoms in bone, kidneys and the gastrointestinal tract; less than 1% of patients were assumed to be asymptomatic. Today, most patients have mild and uncharacteristic symptoms. Primary hyperparathyroidism has been detected with increasing frequency in the western world, but there are large variations within demographically otherwise comparable areas. There are also regional differences regarding the incidence of surgical treatment of the disease. Demographic studies have shown increased morbidity and mortality primarily from cardiovascular and possibly malign diseases related to hypercalcemia. Follow-up studies based on surgical series have shown increased mortality related to preoperative serum calcium level. In view of the altered clinical picture of primary hyperparathyroidism, treatment of moderate and possibly "benign" primary hyperparathyroidism has been actualised. At an international consensus conference in 1990, this patient group was defined by an arbitrary serum calcium limit of 3.0 mmol/l, but this limit has been found to be unacceptably high. Regardless of where the upper limit is set, there are so far well accepted indications for surgery, but only one in two patients fulfil these criteria. A working group of endocrinologists and endocrine surgeons from nine university clinics in Scandinavia have recently initiated a prospective, randomised study evaluating surgical treatment and a systematic follow-up of patients with borderline primary hyperparathyroidism.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J Bollerslev, J E Varhaug, J Falch. 1999-09-20. [Borderline primary hyperparathyroidism].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10533412/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Is there a causal relationship between resistin levels and bone mineral density, fracture occurrence? A mendelian randomization study.

BACKGROUND: In a great many of observational studies, whether there is a relevance of resistin levels on bone mineral density (BMD) and fracture occurrence has been inconsistently reported, and the causality is unclear. METHODS: We aim to assess the resistin levels on BMD and fracture occurrence within a Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis. Exposure and outcome data were derived from the Integrative Epidemiology Unit (IEU) Open genome wide association studies (GWAS) database. Screening of instrumental variables (IVs) was performed subject to conditions of relevance, exclusivity, and independence. Inverse variance weighting (IVW) was our primary method for MR analysis based on harmonized data. Weighted median and MR-Egger were chosen to evaluate the robustness of the results of IVW. Simultaneously, heterogeneity and horizontal pleiotropy were also assessed and the direction of potential causality was detected by MR Steiger. Multivariable MR (MVMR) analysis was used to identify whether confounding factors affected the reliability of the results. RESULTS: After Bonferroni correction, the results showed a suggestively positive causality between resistin levels and total body BMD (TB-BMD) in European populations over the age of 60 [β(95%CI): 0.093(0.021, 0.165), P = 0.011]. The weighted median [β(95%CI): 0.111(0.067, 0.213), P = 0.035] and MR-Egger [β(95%CI): 0.162(0.025, 0.2983), P = 0.040] results demonstrate the robustness of the IVW results. No presence of pleiotropy or heterogeneity was detected between them. MR Steiger supports the causal inference result and MVMR suggests its direct effect. CONCLUSIONS: In European population older than 60 years, genetically predicted higher levels of resistin were associated with higher TB-BMD. A significant causality between resistin levels on BMD at different sites, fracture in certain parts of the body, and BMD in four different age groups between 0-60 years of age was not found in our study.

Bone Density↗

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different times for loading dental implants.

BACKGROUND: To minimize the risk of implant failure, osseointegrated oral implants are conventionally kept load-free during the healing period. During healing removable prostheses are used, however many patients find these temporary prostheses rather uncomfortable and it would be beneficial if the healing period could be shortened without jeopardizing implant success. Nowadays immediate and early loaded implants are commonly used in mandibles of good bone quality. It would be useful to know whether there is a difference in success rates between immediately or early loaded implants compared with conventionally loaded implants. OBJECTIVES: To test the null hypothesis of no difference in the clinical performance between osseointegrated implants loaded at different times one year after loading. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Handsearching included several dental journals. Authors of all identified trials and 55 oral implant manufacturers were contacted to find unpublished RCTs. The last electronic search was conducted on 8 May 2002. SELECTION CRITERIA: All RCTs of root-form osseointegrated oral implants having a follow-up of one year comparing the same osseointegrated root-form oral implants loaded at different times. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two reviewers. Authors were contacted for details of randomization and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out. The Cochrane Oral Health Group's statistical guidelines were followed. MAIN RESULTS: Only three RCTs were identified and two trials including 68 patients in total were suitable for inclusion in this review. Implants have been either immediately loaded after insertion (two to three days), early loaded (six weeks) or conventionally loaded (three to eight months) in edentulous mandibles of adequate bone quality and shape. On a patient, rather than per implant basis, there were no statistically significant differences for prosthesis failures, implant failures and marginal bone loss on intra-oral radiographs. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: While it is possible to successfully load oral implants immediately after their placement in mandibles of adequate bone density and height of carefully selected patients, it is yet unknown how predictable this approach is. More well designed RCTs are needed to understand how predictable immediate and early loading are. Such trials should be simply designed and should be reported according to the CONSORT guidelines (http://www.consort-statement.org/). It is suggested that priority should be given to trials assessing the effectiveness of immediately loaded implants rather than early loaded ones.

Bone Density↗