Identification and protection of the parathyroid glands during thyroid surgery is a skill that every surgeon must be proficient in. However, there is still a risk of early hypocalcemia and PHPP after total thyroidectomy[16]. Because of its fragile blood supply and complex anatomical location, the parathyroid glands are easily damaged during surgery, resulting in hypoparathyroidism, which has a serious impact on postoperative quality of life[17–18].Several studies have shown that operator inexperience, disruption of the blood supply, and miscutting can damage the parathyroid glands leading to hypoparathyroidism[19–22]. Almquist[23] obtained from a surveillance follow-up analysis of a large sample of post-thyroidectomy patients that PTH and blood calcium concentrations on day 1 after total thyroidectomy were independent predictors of the risk of permanent hypoparathyroidism after thyroidectomy. In the present study it was concluded by analysis that PTH level on day 1 after total thyroidectomy was an independent influence on hypoparathyroidism, which is the same conclusion as reported by Cai et al [13].There is a controversy about when to perform PTH measurement after total thyroid cancer resection, and experts in the country have different opinions about this, with the main statements ranging from 10 min to 24 h after surgery[24–25].It has been shown that a PTH concentration of 15 pg /mL on postoperative day 1 is not accurate as a threshold value to predict the occurrence of hypoparathyroidism[26].Some scholars in the relevant literature reported a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 92% for predicting hypocalcemia with PTH < 12 ng / L 20 min after thyroidectomy[27]; Sywak et al[28]. reported a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 84% for PTH (3–10 ng/mL) at 4 h after thyroidectomy. In this study, the ROC curve analysis yielded a PTH value of 8.75 ng/mL as the threshold value on postoperative day 1, with an area under the curve AUC of 0.874 (95% CI: 0.79–0.958, P = 0.000), at which time the sensitivity was 71.4% and specificity was 100%, which is similar to the conclusion reached by Dong et al.[29].When PTH is measured < 8.75 pg/mL, a value below the normal threshold of 15 pg/mL, there is a greater risk of permanent hypoparathyroidism, the reason for this may be that although the attending surgeon carefully identifies and protects the parathyroid glands during the surgical operation, accidental damage to the parathyroid glands does occur from time to time, and intraoperative miscutting, contusion, thermal injury, or disruption of the blood supply can cause a significant degree of damage to parathyroid function. The lower the PTH value measured on the first postoperative day, the greater the possibility that the function of the parathyroid glands has been affected by damage and that it is difficult to return to normal levels within a short period, and the greater the risk of PHPP occurring after surgery. When PTH > 8.75 pg/mL, the PTH concentration at this time is close to the normal critical value, suggesting that little intraoperative paracrine injury occurred, good recovery of blood supply, and little risk of PHPP. It has been reported that parathyroid function is in dynamic recovery after total thyroidectomy and potentially impaired parathyroid function may slowly recover over time[30].Therefore, the closer the PTH value is to normal on postoperative day 1, the less likely it is that the parathyroid glands have been damaged. However, the determination of PTH values on postoperative day 1 in the study also has some shortcomings, because each person does not start the procedure at the same time, resulting in different time points for the end of the procedure, but all of them check the PTH values on postoperative day 1, which is less rigorous compared to specific time points such as 8 hours postoperatively, but has the advantage that the method is relatively simple. The results of this study showed that the incidence of PHPP after total thyroidectomy was 12.5%, which was significantly different from the results reported in the survey by Ponce et al[31]. The analysis may be due to the small sample size in this study, which led to a large error.