Retrospective analysis shows unilateral ganglionectomy improves satisfaction and reduces compensatory hyperhidrosis in primary palmar hyperhidrosis patients.
Background: Primary palmar hyperhidrosis (PPH) is a distressing condition that significantly impairs quality of life. Endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy (ETS) is an effective treatment, but compensatory hyperhidrosis (CH) remains a common and problematic complication. The optimal extent of surgical interruption, particularly the choice between unilateral and bilateral ganglionectomy, remains uncertain. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 118 patients who underwent unilateral (n=41) or bilateral (n=77) T3 ganglionectomy via video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) between November 2023 and January 2025. Patient-reported outcomes, including CH and postoperative satisfaction, were assessed three months postoperatively using standardized questionnaires. Comparisons between the two groups were performed using t-tests and chi-square tests. Results: Baseline demographics were comparable between groups. The unilateral group reported significantly higher satisfaction, with 93% “very satisfied” compared to 61% in the bilateral group (p<0.001). CH was less prevalent in the unilateral group (20% vs. 48%, p=0.007), and when present, was generally mild and limited to a single body region. In contrast, bilateral ganglionectomy was associated with more frequent and multi-regional CH. Among unilateral ETS patients, only 22% later underwent contralateral surgery, indicating that unilateral intervention was sufficient in most cases. Conclusions: Unilateral T3 ganglionectomy offers a favorable balance of efficacy and safety, yielding higher satisfaction and significantly reduced CH compared to bilateral procedures. These findings support the use of unilateral ETS as a first-line surgical strategy for PPH, particularly in patients sensitive to CH. A tailored, staged approach may enhance long-term outcomes and patient satisfaction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shih et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: