Parathyroid fine needle aspiration with PTH washout: Can it lead to parathyroid cell seeding in primary hyperparathyroidism?

Although parathyroid fine-needle aspiration (P-FNA) with parathyroid hormone (PTH) washout is effective in detecting preoperative parathyroid lesions, it also presents risks such as fibrosis, hematoma, and, in rare cases, tumor seeding. This study aimed to investigate whether P-FNA with PTH washout leads to the seeding of parathyroid cells along the path of the needle. A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients undergoing minimally invasive parathyroidectomy guided by preoperative PTH washout. Permanent pathology reports, imaging data, and postoperative serum parathyroid hormone and calcium levels were assessed to determine the effectiveness and safety of the procedure. Complications following P-FNA with PTH washout were also reviewed using data from the patient registration system of Bulent Ecevit University. The procedure accurately localized parathyroid adenomas in 87 patients who underwent ultrasound-guided parathyroidectomy following preoperative P-FNA and PTH washout. Postoperatively, 75 patients showed normal parathyroid hormone and calcium levels. Two patients required secondary surgery for contralateral adenomas. Critically, there was no evidence of P-FNA with PTH washout-induced parathyromatosis or seeding during the follow-up. Effective adenoma localization is crucial for successful minimally invasive surgery of hyperparathyroidism. Our study indicates that combining preoperative P-FNAB with PTH washout and imaging enhances adenoma detection, especially when intraoperative PTH measurements are not available, thus improving surgical outcomes. Notably, we found no evidence of cell implantation after P-FNA, suggesting the safety and efficacy of this method for preventing parathyroid cell seeding.

Use of trauma scoring systems to determine the physician's responsibility in cases of traumatic death with medical malpractice claim.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic injury is near the top of World Health Organization list of leading causes of death, and one of the major factors affecting mortality is the severity of the trauma. During medical intervention for trauma patients, some injuries may be overlooked, and this misstep may be the basis of a malpractice claim. The objective of this study was to provide a new approach to evaluating medical malpractice cases by discussing the benefits of the use of trauma scores. METHODS: Cases of alleged malpractice that were discussed and concluded between 2010 and 2013 were selected from the case archive of the General Committee of the Council of Forensic Medicine (GC of CFM). Injury severity scores were calculated from the medical records of accused physicians and from the autopsy or final clinical evaluation records and compared. RESULTS: Between the years 2010 and 2013, 263 cases of alleged medical malpractice were discussed and concluded by the general committee. Of these, in 25 cases of patient death, the reason for admission to the hospital was traumatic injury. Various surgical specialties were involved. In these 25 cases, 34 physicians were accused of medical malpractice, and the General Committee classified the interventions of 14 physicians in 12 cases as "malpractice." Missed injuries and unrecognized diagnoses can be established by comparing the Injury Severity Score and New Injury Severity Score values in the findings of accused physicians with the subsequent findings of last evaluation or autopsy. CONCLUSION: In a medical malpractice case, calculating injury severity scores may assist an expert witness or judge to detect any unseen injuries and to determine the likely survival potential of the patient, but these values do not provide enough information to evaluate all of the evidence or draw conclusions about the entire case. All contributing factors to trauma severity should be considered along with the trauma score and other case factors.

Manner of Death Determination in Fire Fatalities: 5-Year Autopsy Data of Istanbul City.

Death resulting from burns is an important social problem and a frequent accident. However, because approximately 10% of cases are estimated to result from a fire that was deliberately started, all fire-related deaths should be treated as suspicious, and the cause of a fire should be investigated. For the bodies recovered from the scene of a fire, the manner of death could also be suicide or homicide. The objective of this study was to contribute to the clarification of controversial data present in the literature on the manner of death determination of fire-related deaths, through evaluation of autopsy findings of bodies recovered from fires. We reviewed 20,135 autopsies performed in a 5-year period, in Istanbul, as the whole autopsy data of the city and found 133 fire-related deaths. The death scene investigation reports and other judicial documents, autopsy findings, and toxicological analysis results were evaluated to determine the parameters of age, sex, level of the burn, vital signs [red flare; soot in the lower respiratory tract, esophagus, and/or stomach; and screening of carboxyhemoglobin (COHb) levels in the blood], toxicological substances, presence of accelerants, cause of death, and manner of death. The manner of death was determined to be an accident in 98 (73.7%) and homicide in 12 (9%) cases, whereas there was no suicide. In addition, it could not be determined in 23 (17.2%) cases. In accidental deaths, the most frequent cause of death was COHb poisoning with statistically significant blood COHb levels greater than 10%. Further, the presence of soot in the lower respiratory tract, esophagus, and/or stomach and the existence of at least 1 or 2 vital signs together were found to be valid deterministic criteria with statistical significance in terms of identifying the manner of death.

[Evaluation of medical malpractice in emergency and elective general surgery cases resulting in death]. / Ölümle sonuçlanan acil ve elektif genel cerrahi olgularinda tibbi uygulama hatasinin degerlendirilmesi.

BACKGROUND: General surgery is one of the branches in which the distinction between complication and malpractice is difficult to distinguish. In this study, presentation of the main forensic medical parameters considered for the evaluation of medical malpractice in cases of general surgery deaths in which medical malpractice has been alleged and discussing related concepts through the literature are aimed. METHODS: Allegations of medical malpractice against general surgery physicians sent to the First Forensic Expertise Board of the Council of Forensic Medicine between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2013 for which the relation of casuality between medical malpractice and death had been determined were retrospectively evaluated. RESULTS: Medical malpractice was ruled in 21.9% (n=23) of 105 cases. The most common primary disease diagnoses were trauma-injury (n=32, 30.5%), cholecystitis (n=25, 23.8%) and appendicitis (n=8, 7.6%). When treatment types were compared according to malpractice decision, rate of malpractice in medicine-only treatment was found to be significantly higher compared to surgery + medical treatment (p=0.003, p<0.01). No statistically significant difference was found regarding the rate of malpractice between cases of emergency and elective surgery (p>0.05). When incidence of medical malpractice was compared between cases with clinical diagnosis and diagnosis determined by autopsy, a statistically significant difference was found (p=0.031, p<0.05). Malpractice was ruled at a significantly lower rate in cases in which diagnosis was confirmed with autopsy (p=0.028, p<0.05). DISCUSSION: It can be concluded that physicians are as successful in emergency conditions as in elective conditions and correct administration of medical treatment is of vital importance. Moreover, the Council of Forensic Medicine considers the clinical follow-up data as well as the autopsy data in medical malpractice evaluation.