Vision Loss as a Presenting Feature of Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy: A Case Series.

BACKGROUND: Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP) is an acquired, immune-mediated, and clinically heterogeneous demyelinating disease affecting the nerve roots and peripheral nerves. We report a series of 4 patients who presented with early and progressive vision loss in the context of new-onset CIDP: 3 due to papilledema and 1 due to optic neuropathy without papilledema. METHODS: This was a retrospective case series of 4 patients with vision loss as a presenting feature of CIDP evaluated at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania from January 2016 to August 2021. Demographic, clinical, diagnostic, and treatment data were collected via retrospective medical record review. RESULTS: Case 1 was a 51-year-old man with 2 months of progressive bilateral papilledema associated with reduced visual acuity (count fingers at 1 foot in each eye) and severely constricted visual fields. Case 2 was a 36-year-old man with 4 months of worsening headaches, reduced visual acuity (count fingers at 1 foot in each eye), severely constricted visual fields, and papilledema. Case 3 was a 39-year-old man with papilledema causing progressive vision loss (20/80 in both eyes), headaches, and relapsing limb sensorimotor deficits. Case 4 was a 19-year-old man with 3 months of progressive bilateral visual decline (20/400 in the right eye, 20/600 in the left eye), central scotoma, and optic disc pallor consistent with optic neuropathy without papilledema. All 4 patients met clinical and electrodiagnostic criteria of CIDP. Cases 3 and 4 each tested positive for serum neurofascin-155 IgG4 antibodies. All patients were managed with immunomodulatory therapy. Cases 1 and 2 also each required surgical intervention with bilateral optic nerve sheath fenestration and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) shunting procedures. CONCLUSION: Vision loss from optic neuropathy with or without papilledema has rarely been reported in CIDP, and typically has been described in the context of longstanding disease. Our cases highlight how CIDP can present with early vision loss that may be profound and challenging to manage if diagnosis is delayed. CIDP should be considered in any patient with new progressive vision loss when associated with peripheral sensorimotor symptoms and elevated CSF protein. The small subgroup of CIDP patients with neurofascin-155 antibodies may be at particular risk of optic nerve involvement.

Clinicians performing cosmetic surgery in the community: a nationwide analysis of physician certification.

BACKGROUND: Practitioners who are not board-certified by the American Board of Plastic Surgery are practicing cosmetic surgery. The extent of this issue across the United States has yet to be examined in detail. METHODS: A systematic search using Google was performed to evaluate the qualifications of clinicians marketing themselves as plastic surgeons. For every U.S. state, the following searches were performed: [state] plastic surgery, [state] cosmetic surgery, and [state] aesthetic surgery. The first 50 Web sites returned for each search were visited and scrutinized using the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and American Board of Plastic Surgery Web sites. RESULTS: In total, 7500 Web sites were visited, yielding 2396 board-certified plastic surgeons (77.9 percent of all practitioners). There were 284 board-certified ear, nose, and throat surgeons, 61 (21.5 percent) of whom practice outside their scope; 106 board-certified general surgeons, 100 (94.3 percent) of whom practice outside their scope; 104 board-certified oral and maxillofacial surgery surgeons, 68 (65.4 percent) of whom practice outside their scope; 70 board-certified ophthalmologists/oculoplastic surgeons, 49 (70 percent) of whom practice outside their scope; and 74 board-certified dermatologists, 36 (48.6 percent) of whom practice outside their scope. There were also 16 internal medicine doctors, 13 obstetrics and gynecology physicians, six emergency medicine physicians, three pediatricians, two urologists, two anesthesiologists, and finally one phlebotomist; all of these practitioners practice outside their scope as defined by Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education core competencies. CONCLUSIONS: Many clinicians performing cosmetic surgery are not board-certified. This finding has important implications for patient safety.