� COMPLEX CASES

60 | OCTOBER 2021

Ahealthy 9-year-old girl pre-sented to an urgent care clinic with a red, tender, and swollen right upper eyelid. She was prescribed a 10-day course

of hydroxyzine and cephalexin. The family sought care with another eye care provider (not me) approximately 10 days into the course of antibiotics because the edema had not resolved. That eye care provider advised the family that the girl should complete the course of treatment and return if no improvement was noted after 1 additional week. The patient did not return for care until approximately 1 month later, when she presented to my clinic with right upper lid swelling that had now been present for approximately 2 months.

INITIAL PRESENTATIONThe patient reported no pain

or double vision, and she was afebrile. Her medical history was unremarkable, and she had no known chronic or recurrent ocular problems. UCVA measured 20/20 OU. Pupils were equal, round, and reactive to light in bright conditions (3.0 mm in the right eye and 3.0 mm in the left). However, anisocoria was noted in the dark (4.5 mm in the right eye and 5.5 mm in the left), in addition to a possible dilation lag OD. No relative afferent pupillary defect was observed. Extraocular muscle move-ments were full and without notable restriction in both eyes.

External examination of the right eye revealed moderate ptosis of the

right upper lid with subtle serous edema (Figure 1). Further lid evalu-ation showed that levator function was reduced to 9 mm in the right eye, compared to 14 mm in the left. All other anterior and posterior segment right eye findings were within normal limits. Examination of the anterior and posterior segment of the left eye was unremarkable.

Photos of the patient’s affected eye on her grandmother’s mobile phone, taken at the time of her presentation to the urgent care clinic, suggested that the condition had resembled either a preseptal cellulitis or allergic blepharoconjunctivitis.

FURTHER INVESTIGATION My primary concern for this patient

was that she had a subacute Horner syndrome. However, her significantly reduced levator function did not align well with that diagnosis. Was this an incidental finding caused by the presence of subtle edema, or did this localize the lesion to the orbit?

The child and family denied anhidro-sis, and I was able to confirm the pres-ence of bilateral hidrosis and flushing by asking the child to walk outdoors for an extended period and then return to the exam room. There was no history of chest or neck surgery.

Given the pupil findings, a shared decision was made with the family to urgently evaluate possible etiologies via laboratory studies and neuroimaging. This was necessary to avoid delaying a potentially fatal diagnosis, as my clinic did not have cocaine or apraclonidine

PEDIATRIC PLOT TWIST

Sometimes the obvious findings lead you down the wrong diagnostic path. BY BRANDON RUNYON, OD, FAAO

COMPLEX CASES �

OCTOBER 2021 | 61

drops immediately available to for-mally confirm Horner syndrome.

An MRI of the head, neck, and chest with and without contrast was ordered and obtained within 2 days. A complete blood count was obtained to evaluate for infection and hematologic cancers. Because neuroblastoma has been implicated as a common cause of acquired pedi-atric Horner syndrome, a 24-hour urine catecholamine test was also ordered.1 However, the sample was not returned and therefore the result was never obtained.

RESULTS The results of the complete blood

count, MRI of the neck, and MRI of the chest were noncontributory. However, the MRI of the head was alarming. Neuroimaging confirmed the presence of a mass in the posterosuperior right orbit with suspected involvement of the superior rectus and superior oblique muscles (Figures 2 and 3). Complex signal characteristics were noted in addition to the appearance of bony expansion or destruction of the medial posterior orbit.

According to the radiology report, this was most concerning for aggressive etiologies such as rhabdo-myosarcoma or venous lymphatic mal-formations, and it was felt that inflam-matory etiologies were unlikely due to the lack of retrobulbar fat edema. A CT

scan of the orbits was recommended to further evaluate characteristics of the mass, if clinically necessary.

THE CARE TEAMManagement plans were put in

place before calling the mother with the MRI results. The child’s pediatri-cian was immediately contacted to discuss the findings and the urgent need for elevation of care. It was apparent that the child would need a surgical biopsy and involvement of pediatric oncology. The pediatrician was immensely helpful in coordinat-ing care, thanks to her close working relationship with a large pediatric hospital in the area. I drafted a referral letter summarizing my examination findings and forwarded it to pediatric oncology, along with the MRI results.

The patient’s mother obtained a copy of the MRI images on a disc to carry by hand to the hospital.

The patient reported to the pediatric emergency department the following day and was expeditiously admitted to the oncology ward for initial evaluation. The attending oncologist consulted a pediatric craniofacial surgeon and a pediatric general surgeon, and collec-tively they formulated an extensive care plan. The patient was taken to the OR, and under anesthesia a bone marrow biopsy, a biopsy of the orbital mass, and placement of a central venous port was completed in anticipation of the need for chemotherapy.

PLOT TWISTShortly after this procedure was

completed, the pathology results were obtained. The biopsy results showed presence of inflammatory cells consis-tent with a diagnosis of orbital inflam-matory myositis. No cancerous cells were identified on the specimens, and aggressive etiologies were excluded. As a result, the central venous port was immediately removed.

Upon confirmation of the diagnosis, the patient was immediately started on 20 mg oral prednisone daily, and her condition rapidly improved. Further bloodwork and chest x-rays were ordered to screen for sarcoidosis, granu-lomatosis with polyangiitis, and other autoimmune disorders, which later came back negative. She was discharged

s

It was suspected that the patient in this case had Horner syndrome; however, she had an atypical clinical feature that did not align well with this diagnosis.

s

After multiple lab studies and neuroimaging, a bone marrow biopsy, and a biopsy of an orbital mass, an elusive diagnosis was made.

s

This case is an example of the pros and cons of neuroimaging in making a definitive diagnosis. It also demonstrates how a biopsy can alter both course of treatment and prognosis.

AT A GLANCE

Figure 1. External appearance of the patient at my initial encounter.

� COMPLEX CASES

62 | OCTOBER 2021

on oral prednisone under the direction of the oncologist a few days later.

The patient’s condition resolved after approximately 2 weeks, and a taper of the oral prednisone was initiated. Surprisingly, her condition recurred about 1 month after the prednisone taper, so she was placed on mycophe-nolate mofetil (CellCept, Genentech) for chronic immunosuppression. She con-tinued the mycophenolate for 6 months after the initial recurrence and was sub-sequently tapered off the medication without additional recurrences.

REVIEWING THE LITERATURE Nonspecific orbital inflammation

(NOI), previously referred to as orbital pseudotumor, is an umbrella term for inflammatory masses of the orbit. Although NOI is the third most com-mon orbital mass in adults, a 2008 review article of reports found only 68 cases of pediatric NOI dating back to the 1950s.2,3 The most common presenting symptoms in both adults and children include pain, diplopia, extraocular muscle restriction, and proptosis. In one case series, 21% of pediatric cases were reported to have had pupillary involvement.4

Diffuse or localized NOI presenta-tions have been reported with inflam-mation possibly affecting the lacrimal

gland, extraocular muscles (as in this case), uvea, and/or the cavernous sinus.1 Although adult NOI most often presents unilaterally, pediatric NOI frequently presents bilaterally with additional presence of uveitis and optic disc edema.3 Because of the variable presentation and overlap with other disease entities, utilization of neuroimaging modalities such as CT or MRI of the orbits is necessary to exclude malignant, infectious, and other etiologies. Biopsy is indicated for atypical cases prior to initiation of immunosuppressant medications.5

The pathogenesis of NOI is not well understood, but the disease has been associated with various autoimmune conditions, including systemic lupus erythematosus, thyroid disease, sar-coidosis, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn disease, myasthenia gravis, ankylosing spondylitis, and others. Recently, immunoglobulin G4–related disease has been implicated in 17% to 60% of adult cases of NOI as an etiology, but incidence and prevalence in the pedi-atric population has not been widely studied.6,7 Because of these systemic associations, a systemic workup is indicated for suspected NOI in either adults or children.

Various therapies have been suc-cessful for NOI in adults and children.

Oral corticosteroids are generally the first-line therapy, but use of NSAIDs, systemic immunomodulatory medications, radiation therapy, and surgical resection has also been suggested, especially for chronic or recalcitrant disease.8,9

KEY TAKEAWAYSIn daily clinical practice, we often

see patients with atypical clinical features or with signs and symptoms that do not follow the expected clini-cal course. Sometimes explaining the constellation of clinical findings in dif-ficult cases can be challenging. These cases teach us to critically analyze our findings and data, widen our dif-ferential diagnoses, and involve other medical specialists when the waters become too murky.

Although the need for eye care pro-viders to order neuroimaging for pedi-atric patients does not arise frequently, cases such as this one illustrate both the value and drawbacks of neuroim-aging in making a definitive diagnosis. The case also demonstrates how a biopsy can drastically alter both the course of treatment and prognosis. n

1. Smith SJ, Diehl N, Leavitt JA, Mohney BG. Incidence of pediatric Horner syndrome and the risk of neuroblastoma: a population-based study. Arch Ophthalmol. 2010;128(3):324-329.2. Weber AL, Romo LV, Sabates NR. Pseudotumor of the orbit: clinical, patho-logic, and radiologic evaluation. Radiol Clin North Am. 1999;37:151-168.3. Kitei D, DiMario FJ Jr. Childhood orbital pseudotumor: case report and literature review. J Child Neurol. 2008;23(4):425-430.4. Cahill KV. Pediatric orbital inflammatory disorders. In: Katowitz JA, eds. Pediatric Oculoplastic Surgery. Springer; 2002:421-433.5. Boulter EL, Eleftheriou D, Sebire NJ, Edelsten C, Brogan PA. Inflammatory lesions of the orbit: a single paediatric rheumatology centre experience. Rheumatology. 2012;51(6):1070-1075.6. Tsai CY, Kuo KT, Cheng AMS, et al. IgG-related ophthalmic disease in idiopathic sclerosing and non-sclerosing orbital inflammation: a 25-year experience. Curr Eye Res. 2019;44(11):1220-1225.7. Stone JH, Khosroshahi A, Deshpande V, et al. Recommendations for the nomenclature of IgG4-related disease and its individual organ system manifestations. Arthritis Rheum. 2012;64(10):3061-3067.8. Espinoza GM. Orbital inflammatory pseudotumors: etiology, differential, diagnosis, and management. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2010;12:443-447.9. Pemberton JD, Fay A. Idiopathic sclerosing orbital inflammation: a review of demographics, clinical presentation, imaging, pathology, treatment, and outcome. Ophthalmic Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;28(1):79-83.

BRANDON RUNYON, OD, FAAOn Optometrist, Virginia Eye Consultants, Norfolk, Virginian brunyon@cvphealth.com n Financial disclosure: None

Figure 2. MRI of the head: axial T1 section with fat suppression and contrast demonstrate a mass of the right posterosuperior orbit.

Figure 3. MRI of the head: coronal T1 with contrast demonstrates mass of the right posterosuperior orbit with downward displacement of the globe.