Thyroid eye disease presenting with superior rectus/levator complex enlargement.

Purpose: To describe the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients with thyroid eye disease (TED) who present with predominate superior rectus/levator complex involvement.Methods: A multi-institutional retrospective review was performed to identify patients with TED who presented with superior isolated or predominate rectus/levator involvement. Baseline and subsequent visits were reviewed to characterize the clinical course.Results: Nineteen patients were identified. All patients had imaging demonstrating an enlarged levator/superior rectus complex. At presentation, the mean clinical activity score (CAS) was 2.1 (range: 0-5). Nineteen (100%) patients had proptosis on the affected side. Lid abnormalities, including upper/lower eyelid retraction and ptosis were higher on affected side compared to the unaffected side. Eleven (58%) patients had vertical misalignment. Mean thyroid stimulating immunoglobulin (TSI) was 3.7 (range: 1-7.1). Mean follow-up time was 18 months (range: 0-60 months). At last follow-up, the mean CAS was 1.3 (range 0-5). Ten (53%) patients had proptosis. Eleven (58%) patients had vertical misalignment. Repeat imaging in eight patients showed interval enlargement of other extraocular muscles.Conclusions: The presentation of TED with superior rectus/levator complex enlargement may be under-appreciated. Orbital imaging, as well as laboratory evaluation, may help support a diagnosis of TED. In the setting of abnormal TSI and/or thyrotropin receptor antibody, presence of upper eyelid retraction, and an otherwise unremarkable laboratory and systemic evaluation, a presumptive diagnosis of TED may be made, and the patient can be followed closely, as he/she is likely to develop involvement of other extraocular muscles, consistent with a more typical presentation of TED.

Neuroimaging in patients referred to a neuro-ophthalmology service: the rates of appropriateness and concordance in interpretation.

OBJECTIVE: Neuroimaging studies frequently are ordered to investigate neuro-ophthalmic symptoms. When misused, these studies are expensive and time consuming. This study describes the type and frequency of neuroimaging errors in patients referred to an academic neuro-ophthalmology service and measures how frequently these neuroimaging studies were reinterpreted. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-four consecutive patients referred to an academic neuro-ophthalmology practice. METHODS: From November 2009 through July 2010, 84 consecutive new patients who had undergone a neuroimaging study in the last 12 months specifically to evaluate their presenting neuro-ophthalmic symptoms were enrolled prospectively. Participants then underwent a complete neuro-ophthalmic evaluation, followed by a review of prior neuroimaging. Questions regarding appropriateness of the most recent imaging, concordance of radiologic interpretation, and re-evaluation of referring diagnoses were answered by the attending physician. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The frequency and types of errors committed in the use of neuroimaging and the frequency of reinterpretation of prereferral neuroimaging studies after neuro-ophthalmic history and examination. RESULTS: Most study participants (84.5%; 71/84) underwent magnetic resonance imaging before referral; 15.5% (13/84) underwent only computed tomography. The rate of suboptimal neuroimaging studies was 38.1% (32/84). The 3 most common reasons for suboptimal studies were incomplete area of imaging (34.4%; 11/32), wrong study type (28.1%; 9/32), and poor image quality (21.9%; 7/32). Twenty-four of 84 subjects (28.6%) required additional neuroimaging. The authors agreed with the radiology interpretation of the prior neuroimaging studies in most patients (77.4%; 65/84). The most common anatomic locations for discordance in interpretation were the intraorbital optic nerve (35%; 7/20) and the brainstem (20%; 4/20). CONCLUSIONS: There was a high rate of suboptimal neuroimaging studies performed in patients referred for neuro-ophthalmology examination. These findings have significant implications given the increasing attention to resource use currently and in the near future.

Charles Bonnet syndrome: a review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aging of the population and the resultant increase in the number of patients with low vision due to age-related macular degeneration and other ocular diseases necessitate an increase in awareness of the Charles Bonnet syndrome among ophthalmic care providers. RECENT FINDINGS: The clinical features of Charles Bonnet syndrome have been described by several different authors as formed visual hallucinations due to disturbances of the visual system in patients who are otherwise mentally normal. Theories regarding the causes underlying the Charles Bonnet syndrome are multifaceted and offer insight into the function of the visual system. The incidence of the Charles Bonnet syndrome varies among different population groups, but is underdiagnosed in most settings. Recent case reports of treatment options involve varied pharmacologic interventions, but visual improvement and patient reassurance remain the mainstays of treatment. SUMMARY: As Charles Bonnet syndrome becomes more prevalent as the population ages, all physicians who care for low vision or elderly patients should be aware of its clinical characteristics and treatment options. Understanding of this syndrome by caregivers will lead to decreased anxiety among the patients who experience it. Further exploration of treatment options will be necessary in the future.

Ocular vasculitis.

Systemic vasculitis can affect practically any structure in or around the eye. Although the ocular presentations of vasculitic disease are highly variable and may be quite subtle, it is important for physicians to understand some of the basic concepts, critical findings, and potential significance of ocular signs and symptoms. In addition to preserving sight, awareness of specific ocular syndromes may afford a critical clue to undiagnosed or newly active systemic vasculitis. A brief discussion of the most common ocular syndromes seen in systemic vascular disease is presented, with special attention given to the signs that may be appreciated by non-ophthalmologists. Recent concepts of ocular immunologic therapy are also reviewed, especially as they relate to the use of systemic immunomodulating drugs, because care of these patients often requires close cooperation between ophthalmologists, primary care physicians, and rheumatologists.