Case Reports

A 73-year-old male veteran with a history of ischemic stroke with left-sided deficits and edema, falls, poorly controlled hypertension, active tobacco use, obesity, and prediabetes was assessed on a routine visit by our home-based primary care team and found to have a new, unilateral, asymptomatic rash. He reported feeling no pain in the affected area or any significant increase in the baseline left lower extremity edema and weakness resulting from his stroke 2 years prior.

On the left lateral leg from mid-thigh to mid-calf, there was a nontender, flat, reticulated rash with pigmentary alteration ranging from light brown to dark brown (Figure).

On further questioning, the patient reported regular use of a space heater because his gas furnace had been destroyed in an earthquake more than 20 years before. He would place this heater close to his left leg when using the computer or while sleeping in his wheelchair.

• What is your diagnosis?
• How would you treat this patient?

Our Diagnosis

Erythema ab igne, also called hot water bottle rash, is a clinical diagnosis based on characteristic cutaneous findings and a clear history of chronic, moderate heat or infrared exposure.¹ Although exposure to space heaters, open fire, radiators, hot water bottles, and heating pads are the classic causes, recently there have been reports of laptop computers, cell phones, infrared food lamps, automobile seat heaters, and heated recliners causing the same type of skin reaction.²

With chronic moderate heat or infrared exposure, the rash usually progresses over days to months. It begins as a mild, transient, reticulated, erythematous rash, which follows the pattern of the cutaneous venous plexus and resolves minutes to hours after removal of the offending source as vasodilation resolves. After months of continued exposure, the dermis around the affected vasculature eventually becomes hyperpigmented due to the deposition of melanin and sometimes hemosiderin.

The rash is usually asymptomatic but has been associated with pain, pruritis, and/or tingling. Once the diagnosis is made, treatment involves removal of the offending source. The discoloration may resolve over months to years, but permanent hyperpigmentation is not uncommon. There are a few case reports on treatment using Nd-Yag laser therapy, topical hydroquinone and tretinoin, 5-fluorouracil, and systemic mesoglycan with topical bioflavonoids.^2-4

While the prognosis of erythema ab igne is excellent if detected early, failure to recognize this condition and remove the offending source can lead to sequalae, such as squamous cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated carcinoma, cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma, and Merkel cell carcinoma.^5-8 Development of malignancy typically has a latency period of > 30 years. Patients should have periodic surveillance of their skin and any suspicious lesion in the involved area should be considered for biopsy.

Rashes may represent systemic or more localized pathology (Table). In contrast to erythema ab igne, the rash associated with a vasculitic process (autoimmune, drug-induced, or infectious) tends to be more generalized and bilateral but still follows the pattern of the cutaneous venous plexus. An example of this would be livedo reticularis. Although this rash is reticular, it is not hyperpigmented.⁹ A variant of livedo reticularis is cutis marmorata, which develops in response to cold exposure, particularly in infants or in the setting of hypothyroidism.Cutis marmorata is erythematous, blanchable, and reversible with rewarming. Unlike erythema ab igne, there is no hyperpigmentation and tends to be more diffuse.¹⁰ 

When evaluating a reticular rash, consider local and systemic etiologies. If more localized and hyperpigmented, ask about heat or infrared exposure. This may point to a diagnosis of erythema ab igne.

A 73-year-old male veteran with a history of ischemic stroke with left-sided deficits and edema, falls, poorly controlled hypertension, active tobacco use, obesity, and prediabetes was assessed on a routine visit by our home-based primary care team and found to have a new, unilateral, asymptomatic rash. He reported feeling no pain in the affected area or any significant increase in the baseline left lower extremity edema and weakness resulting from his stroke 2 years prior.

On the left lateral leg from mid-thigh to mid-calf, there was a nontender, flat, reticulated rash with pigmentary alteration ranging from light brown to dark brown (Figure).

On further questioning, the patient reported regular use of a space heater because his gas furnace had been destroyed in an earthquake more than 20 years before. He would place this heater close to his left leg when using the computer or while sleeping in his wheelchair.

• What is your diagnosis?
• How would you treat this patient?

Our Diagnosis

Erythema ab igne, also called hot water bottle rash, is a clinical diagnosis based on characteristic cutaneous findings and a clear history of chronic, moderate heat or infrared exposure.¹ Although exposure to space heaters, open fire, radiators, hot water bottles, and heating pads are the classic causes, recently there have been reports of laptop computers, cell phones, infrared food lamps, automobile seat heaters, and heated recliners causing the same type of skin reaction.²

With chronic moderate heat or infrared exposure, the rash usually progresses over days to months. It begins as a mild, transient, reticulated, erythematous rash, which follows the pattern of the cutaneous venous plexus and resolves minutes to hours after removal of the offending source as vasodilation resolves. After months of continued exposure, the dermis around the affected vasculature eventually becomes hyperpigmented due to the deposition of melanin and sometimes hemosiderin.

The rash is usually asymptomatic but has been associated with pain, pruritis, and/or tingling. Once the diagnosis is made, treatment involves removal of the offending source. The discoloration may resolve over months to years, but permanent hyperpigmentation is not uncommon. There are a few case reports on treatment using Nd-Yag laser therapy, topical hydroquinone and tretinoin, 5-fluorouracil, and systemic mesoglycan with topical bioflavonoids.^2-4

While the prognosis of erythema ab igne is excellent if detected early, failure to recognize this condition and remove the offending source can lead to sequalae, such as squamous cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated carcinoma, cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma, and Merkel cell carcinoma.^5-8 Development of malignancy typically has a latency period of > 30 years. Patients should have periodic surveillance of their skin and any suspicious lesion in the involved area should be considered for biopsy.

Rashes may represent systemic or more localized pathology (Table). In contrast to erythema ab igne, the rash associated with a vasculitic process (autoimmune, drug-induced, or infectious) tends to be more generalized and bilateral but still follows the pattern of the cutaneous venous plexus. An example of this would be livedo reticularis. Although this rash is reticular, it is not hyperpigmented.⁹ A variant of livedo reticularis is cutis marmorata, which develops in response to cold exposure, particularly in infants or in the setting of hypothyroidism.Cutis marmorata is erythematous, blanchable, and reversible with rewarming. Unlike erythema ab igne, there is no hyperpigmentation and tends to be more diffuse.¹⁰ 

When evaluating a reticular rash, consider local and systemic etiologies. If more localized and hyperpigmented, ask about heat or infrared exposure. This may point to a diagnosis of erythema ab igne.

A 73-year-old male veteran with a history of ischemic stroke with left-sided deficits and edema, falls, poorly controlled hypertension, active tobacco use, obesity, and prediabetes was assessed on a routine visit by our home-based primary care team and found to have a new, unilateral, asymptomatic rash. He reported feeling no pain in the affected area or any significant increase in the baseline left lower extremity edema and weakness resulting from his stroke 2 years prior.

On the left lateral leg from mid-thigh to mid-calf, there was a nontender, flat, reticulated rash with pigmentary alteration ranging from light brown to dark brown (Figure).

On further questioning, the patient reported regular use of a space heater because his gas furnace had been destroyed in an earthquake more than 20 years before. He would place this heater close to his left leg when using the computer or while sleeping in his wheelchair.

• What is your diagnosis?
• How would you treat this patient?

Our Diagnosis

Erythema ab igne, also called hot water bottle rash, is a clinical diagnosis based on characteristic cutaneous findings and a clear history of chronic, moderate heat or infrared exposure.¹ Although exposure to space heaters, open fire, radiators, hot water bottles, and heating pads are the classic causes, recently there have been reports of laptop computers, cell phones, infrared food lamps, automobile seat heaters, and heated recliners causing the same type of skin reaction.²

With chronic moderate heat or infrared exposure, the rash usually progresses over days to months. It begins as a mild, transient, reticulated, erythematous rash, which follows the pattern of the cutaneous venous plexus and resolves minutes to hours after removal of the offending source as vasodilation resolves. After months of continued exposure, the dermis around the affected vasculature eventually becomes hyperpigmented due to the deposition of melanin and sometimes hemosiderin.

The rash is usually asymptomatic but has been associated with pain, pruritis, and/or tingling. Once the diagnosis is made, treatment involves removal of the offending source. The discoloration may resolve over months to years, but permanent hyperpigmentation is not uncommon. There are a few case reports on treatment using Nd-Yag laser therapy, topical hydroquinone and tretinoin, 5-fluorouracil, and systemic mesoglycan with topical bioflavonoids.^2-4

While the prognosis of erythema ab igne is excellent if detected early, failure to recognize this condition and remove the offending source can lead to sequalae, such as squamous cell carcinoma, poorly differentiated carcinoma, cutaneous marginal zone lymphoma, and Merkel cell carcinoma.^5-8 Development of malignancy typically has a latency period of > 30 years. Patients should have periodic surveillance of their skin and any suspicious lesion in the involved area should be considered for biopsy.

Rashes may represent systemic or more localized pathology (Table). In contrast to erythema ab igne, the rash associated with a vasculitic process (autoimmune, drug-induced, or infectious) tends to be more generalized and bilateral but still follows the pattern of the cutaneous venous plexus. An example of this would be livedo reticularis. Although this rash is reticular, it is not hyperpigmented.⁹ A variant of livedo reticularis is cutis marmorata, which develops in response to cold exposure, particularly in infants or in the setting of hypothyroidism.Cutis marmorata is erythematous, blanchable, and reversible with rewarming. Unlike erythema ab igne, there is no hyperpigmentation and tends to be more diffuse.¹⁰ 

When evaluating a reticular rash, consider local and systemic etiologies. If more localized and hyperpigmented, ask about heat or infrared exposure. This may point to a diagnosis of erythema ab igne.

Localized reactions and transient pain at the site of vaccine administration are frequent and well-described occurrences that are typically short-lived and mild in nature. The most common findings at the injection site are soreness, erythema, and edema.¹ Although less common, generalized shoulder dysfunction after vaccine administration also has been reported. Bodor and colleagues described a peri-articular inflammatory response that led to shoulder pain and weakness.² A single case report by Kuether and colleagues described atraumatic osteonecrosis of the humeral head after H1N1 vaccine administration in the deltoid.³ In 2010, shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) was described by Atanasoff and colleagues as the rapid onset of shoulder pain and dysfunction persisting as a complication of deltoid muscle vaccination in a case series of 13 patients.⁴ In our report, we present a case of an active-duty male eventually diagnosed with SIRVA after influenza vaccination and discuss factors that may prevent vaccine-related shoulder injuries.

Case Presentation

A 31-year-old active-duty male presented to the Allergy clinic for evaluation of persistent left shoulder pain and decreased range of motion (ROM) following influenza vaccination 4 months prior. He reported a history of chronic low back and right shoulder pain. Although the patient had a traumatic injury to his right shoulder, which was corrected with surgery, he had no surgeries on the left shoulder. He reported no prior pain or known trauma to his left shoulder. He had no personal or family history of atopy or vaccine reactions.

The patient weighed 91 kg and received an intramuscular (IM) quadrivalent influenza vaccine with a 25-gauge, 1-inch needle during a mass influenza immunization. He recalled that the site of vaccination was slightly more than 3 cm below the top of the shoulder in a region correlating to the left deltoid. The vaccine was administered while he was standing with his arm extended, adducted, and internally rotated. The patient experienced intense pain immediately after the vaccination and noted decreased ROM. Initially, he dismissed the pain and decreased ROM as routine but sought medical attention when there was no improvement after 3 weeks.

Six weeks after the onset of symptoms, a magnetic resonance image (MRI) revealed tendinopathy of the left distal subscapularis, infraspinatus, supraspinatus, and teres minor tendon. These findings were suggestive of a small partial thickness tear of the supraspinatus (Figure 1), possible calcific tendinopathy of the distal teres minor (Figure 2), and underlying humeral head edema (Figure 3). The patient was evaluated by Orthopedics and experienced no relief from ibuprofen, celecoxib, and a steroid/lidocaine intra-articular injection. Laboratory studies included an unremarkable complete blood count and erythrocyte sedimentation rate. He was diagnosed with SIRVA and continued in physical therapy with incomplete resolution of symptoms 6 months postvaccination.

Discussion

According to a 2018 report issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, local reactions following immunizations are seen in up to 80% of administered vaccine doses.¹ While most of these reactions are mild, transient, cutaneous reactions, rarely these also may persist and impact quality of life significantly. SIRVA is one such process that can lead to persistent musculoskeletal dysfunction. SIRVA presents as shoulder pain and limited ROM that occurs after the administration of an injectable vaccine. In 2011, the Institute of Medicine determined that evidence supported a causal relationship between vaccine administration and deltoid bursitis.⁵

In 2017, SIRVA was included in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), a federal program that can provide compensation to individuals injured by certain vaccines.⁶ A diagnosis of SIRVA can be considered in patients who experience pain within 48 hours of vaccination, have no prior history of pain or dysfunction of the affected shoulder prior to vaccine administration, and have symptoms limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered where no other abnormality is present to explain these symptoms (eg, brachial neuritis, other neuropathy). Currently, patients with back pain or musculoskeletal complaints that do not include the shoulder following deltoid vaccination do not meet the reporting criteria for SIRVA in the VICP.⁶

The exact prevalence or incidence of SIRVA is unknown. In a 2017 systematic review of the literature and the Spanish Pharmacovigilance System database, Martín Arias and colleagues found 45 cases of new onset, unilateral shoulder dysfunction without associated neuropathy or autoimmune conditions following vaccine administration. They noted a female to male predominance (71.1% vs 28.9%) with a mean age of 53.6 years (range 22-89 y). Most of the cases occurred following influenza vaccine (62%); pneumococcal vaccine was the next most common (13%).⁷ Shoulder injury also has been reported after tetanus-diphtheria toxoids, human papilloma virus, and hepatitis A virus vaccines.^4,7 The review noted that all patients had onset of pain within the first week following vaccination with the majority (81%) having pain in the first 24 hours. Two cases found in the Spanish database had pain onset 2 months postvaccination.⁷ Atanasoff and colleagues found that 93% of patients had pain onset within 24 hours of vaccination with 54% reporting immediate pain.⁴

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) tracks reports of shoulder dysfunction following certain vaccinations, but the system is unable to establish causality. According to VAERS reporting, between 2010 and 2016, there were 1006 possible reports of shoulder dysfunction following inactivated influenza vaccination (IIV) compared with an estimated 130 million doses of IIV given each influenza season in the US.⁸

Bodor and Montalvo postulated that vaccine antigen was being over penetrated into the synovial space of the shoulder, as the subdeltoid/subacromial bursa is located a mere 0.8 to 1.6 cm below the skin surface in patients with healthy body mass index.² Atanasoff and colleagues expounded that antibodies from previous vaccination or natural infection may then form antigen-antibody complexes, creating prolonged local immune and inflammatory responses leading to bursitis or tendonitis.⁴ Martín Arias and colleagues hypothesized that improper injection technique, including wrong insertion angle, incorrect needle type/size, and failure to account for the patient’s physical characteristics were the most likely causes of SIRVA.⁷

Proper vaccine administration ensures that vaccinations are delivered in a safe and efficacious manner. Safe vaccination practices include the use of trained personnel who receive comprehensive, competency-based training regarding vaccine administration.¹ Aspiration prior to an injection is a practice that has not been evaluated fully. Given that the 2 routinely recommended locations for IM vaccines (deltoid muscle in adults or vastus lateralis muscle in infants) lack large blood vessels, the practice of aspiration prior to an IM vaccine is not currently deemed necessary.¹ Additional safe vaccine practices include the selection of appropriate needle length for muscle penetration and that anatomic landmarks determine the location of vaccination.¹ Despite this, in a survey of 100 medical professionals, half could not name any structure at risk from improper deltoid vaccination technique.⁹

Cook and colleagues used anthropomorphic data to evaluate the potential for injury to the subdeltoid/subacromial bursa and/or the axillary nerve.¹⁰ Based on these data, they recommended safe IM vaccine administration can be assured by using the midpoint of the deltoid muscle located midway between the acromion and deltoid tuberosity with the arm abducted to 60°.^10,11 In 46% of SIRVA cases described by Atanasoff and colleagues, patients reported that the vaccine was administered “too high.”⁴ The study also recommended that the clinician and the patient be in the seated position to ensure proper needle angle and location of administration.⁴ For most adults, a 1-inch needle is appropriate for vaccine administration in the deltoid; however, in females weighing < 70 kg and males < 75 kg, a 5/8-inch needle is recommended to avoid injury.⁷

Our 91-kg patient was appropriately administered his vaccine with a 1-inch needle. As he experienced immediate pain, it is unlikely that his symptoms were due to an immune-mediated process, as this would not be expected to occur immediately. Improper location of vaccine administration is a proposed mechanism of injury for our patient, though this cannot be confirmed by history alone. His prior history of traumatic injury to the opposite shoulder could represent a confounding factor as no prior imaging was available for the vaccine-affected shoulder. A preexisting shoulder abnormality or injury cannot be completely excluded, and it is possible that an underlying prior shoulder injury was aggravated postvaccination.

Evaluation and Treatment

There is no standardized approach for the evaluation of SIRVA to date. Awareness of SIRVA and a high index of suspicion are necessary to evaluate patients with shoulder concerns postvaccination. Laboratory evaluation should be considered to evaluate for other potential diagnoses (eg, infection, rheumatologic concerns). Routine X-rays are not helpful in cases of SIRVA. Ultrasound may be considered as it can show bursa abnormalities consistent with bursitis.² MRI of the affected shoulder may provide improved diagnostic capability if SIRVA is suspected. MRI findings vary but include intraosseous edema, bursitis, tendonitis, and rotator cuff tears.^4,12 Complete rotator cuff tears were found in 15% of cases reviewed by Atanasoff and colleagues.⁴ While there is no recommended timing for MRI, 63% of MRIs were performed within 3 months of symptom onset.⁴ As SIRVA is not a neurologic injury, nerve conduction, electromyographic studies, and neurologic evaluation or testing are expected to be normal.

Treatment of SIRVA and other vaccine-related shoulder injuries typically have involved pain management (eg, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents), intra-articular steroid injections, and physical therapy, though some patients never experience complete resolution of symptoms.^2,4,7 Both patients with vaccination-related shoulder dysfunction described by Bodor and colleagues improved after intra-articular triamcinolone injections, with up to 3 injections before complete resolution of pain in one patient.² Orthopedics evaluation may need to be considered for persistent symptoms. According to Atanasoff and colleagues, most patients were symptomatic for at least 6 months, and complete recovery was seen in less than one-third of patients.⁴ Although the development of SIRVA is not a contraindication to future doses of the presumed causative vaccine, subsequent vaccination should include careful consideration of other administration sites if possible (eg, vastus lateralis may be used for IM injections in adults) (Figure 4).

Reporting

A diagnosis or concern for SIRVA also should be reported to the VAERS, the national database established in order to detect possible safety problems with US-licensed vaccines. VAERS reports can be submitted by anyone with concerns for vaccine adverse reactions, including patients, caregivers, and health care professionals at vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html. Additional information regarding VICP can be obtained at www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html.

Military-Specific Issues

The military values readiness, which includes ensuring that active-duty members remain up-to-date on life-saving vaccinations. Immunization is of critical importance to mobility and success of the overall mission. Mobility processing lines where immunizations can be provided to multiple active-duty members can be a successful strategy for mass immunizations. Although the quick administration of immunizations maintains readiness and provides a medically necessary service, it also may increase the chances of incorrect vaccine placement in the deltoid, causing long-term shoulder immobility that may impact a service member’s retainability. The benefits of mobility processing lines can continue to outweigh the risks of immunization administration by ensuring proper staff training, seating both the administrator and recipient of vaccination, and selecting a proper needle length and site of administration specific to each recipient.

Conclusion

Correct administration of vaccines is of utmost importance in preventing SIRVA and other vaccine-related shoulder dysfunctions. Proper staff training and refresher training can help prevent vaccine-related shoulder injuries. Additionally, clinicians should be aware of this potential complication and maintain a high index of suspicion when evaluating patients with postvaccination shoulder complaints.

Localized reactions and transient pain at the site of vaccine administration are frequent and well-described occurrences that are typically short-lived and mild in nature. The most common findings at the injection site are soreness, erythema, and edema.¹ Although less common, generalized shoulder dysfunction after vaccine administration also has been reported. Bodor and colleagues described a peri-articular inflammatory response that led to shoulder pain and weakness.² A single case report by Kuether and colleagues described atraumatic osteonecrosis of the humeral head after H1N1 vaccine administration in the deltoid.³ In 2010, shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) was described by Atanasoff and colleagues as the rapid onset of shoulder pain and dysfunction persisting as a complication of deltoid muscle vaccination in a case series of 13 patients.⁴ In our report, we present a case of an active-duty male eventually diagnosed with SIRVA after influenza vaccination and discuss factors that may prevent vaccine-related shoulder injuries.

Case Presentation

A 31-year-old active-duty male presented to the Allergy clinic for evaluation of persistent left shoulder pain and decreased range of motion (ROM) following influenza vaccination 4 months prior. He reported a history of chronic low back and right shoulder pain. Although the patient had a traumatic injury to his right shoulder, which was corrected with surgery, he had no surgeries on the left shoulder. He reported no prior pain or known trauma to his left shoulder. He had no personal or family history of atopy or vaccine reactions.

The patient weighed 91 kg and received an intramuscular (IM) quadrivalent influenza vaccine with a 25-gauge, 1-inch needle during a mass influenza immunization. He recalled that the site of vaccination was slightly more than 3 cm below the top of the shoulder in a region correlating to the left deltoid. The vaccine was administered while he was standing with his arm extended, adducted, and internally rotated. The patient experienced intense pain immediately after the vaccination and noted decreased ROM. Initially, he dismissed the pain and decreased ROM as routine but sought medical attention when there was no improvement after 3 weeks.

Six weeks after the onset of symptoms, a magnetic resonance image (MRI) revealed tendinopathy of the left distal subscapularis, infraspinatus, supraspinatus, and teres minor tendon. These findings were suggestive of a small partial thickness tear of the supraspinatus (Figure 1), possible calcific tendinopathy of the distal teres minor (Figure 2), and underlying humeral head edema (Figure 3). The patient was evaluated by Orthopedics and experienced no relief from ibuprofen, celecoxib, and a steroid/lidocaine intra-articular injection. Laboratory studies included an unremarkable complete blood count and erythrocyte sedimentation rate. He was diagnosed with SIRVA and continued in physical therapy with incomplete resolution of symptoms 6 months postvaccination.

Discussion

According to a 2018 report issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, local reactions following immunizations are seen in up to 80% of administered vaccine doses.¹ While most of these reactions are mild, transient, cutaneous reactions, rarely these also may persist and impact quality of life significantly. SIRVA is one such process that can lead to persistent musculoskeletal dysfunction. SIRVA presents as shoulder pain and limited ROM that occurs after the administration of an injectable vaccine. In 2011, the Institute of Medicine determined that evidence supported a causal relationship between vaccine administration and deltoid bursitis.⁵

In 2017, SIRVA was included in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), a federal program that can provide compensation to individuals injured by certain vaccines.⁶ A diagnosis of SIRVA can be considered in patients who experience pain within 48 hours of vaccination, have no prior history of pain or dysfunction of the affected shoulder prior to vaccine administration, and have symptoms limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered where no other abnormality is present to explain these symptoms (eg, brachial neuritis, other neuropathy). Currently, patients with back pain or musculoskeletal complaints that do not include the shoulder following deltoid vaccination do not meet the reporting criteria for SIRVA in the VICP.⁶

The exact prevalence or incidence of SIRVA is unknown. In a 2017 systematic review of the literature and the Spanish Pharmacovigilance System database, Martín Arias and colleagues found 45 cases of new onset, unilateral shoulder dysfunction without associated neuropathy or autoimmune conditions following vaccine administration. They noted a female to male predominance (71.1% vs 28.9%) with a mean age of 53.6 years (range 22-89 y). Most of the cases occurred following influenza vaccine (62%); pneumococcal vaccine was the next most common (13%).⁷ Shoulder injury also has been reported after tetanus-diphtheria toxoids, human papilloma virus, and hepatitis A virus vaccines.^4,7 The review noted that all patients had onset of pain within the first week following vaccination with the majority (81%) having pain in the first 24 hours. Two cases found in the Spanish database had pain onset 2 months postvaccination.⁷ Atanasoff and colleagues found that 93% of patients had pain onset within 24 hours of vaccination with 54% reporting immediate pain.⁴

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) tracks reports of shoulder dysfunction following certain vaccinations, but the system is unable to establish causality. According to VAERS reporting, between 2010 and 2016, there were 1006 possible reports of shoulder dysfunction following inactivated influenza vaccination (IIV) compared with an estimated 130 million doses of IIV given each influenza season in the US.⁸

Bodor and Montalvo postulated that vaccine antigen was being over penetrated into the synovial space of the shoulder, as the subdeltoid/subacromial bursa is located a mere 0.8 to 1.6 cm below the skin surface in patients with healthy body mass index.² Atanasoff and colleagues expounded that antibodies from previous vaccination or natural infection may then form antigen-antibody complexes, creating prolonged local immune and inflammatory responses leading to bursitis or tendonitis.⁴ Martín Arias and colleagues hypothesized that improper injection technique, including wrong insertion angle, incorrect needle type/size, and failure to account for the patient’s physical characteristics were the most likely causes of SIRVA.⁷

Proper vaccine administration ensures that vaccinations are delivered in a safe and efficacious manner. Safe vaccination practices include the use of trained personnel who receive comprehensive, competency-based training regarding vaccine administration.¹ Aspiration prior to an injection is a practice that has not been evaluated fully. Given that the 2 routinely recommended locations for IM vaccines (deltoid muscle in adults or vastus lateralis muscle in infants) lack large blood vessels, the practice of aspiration prior to an IM vaccine is not currently deemed necessary.¹ Additional safe vaccine practices include the selection of appropriate needle length for muscle penetration and that anatomic landmarks determine the location of vaccination.¹ Despite this, in a survey of 100 medical professionals, half could not name any structure at risk from improper deltoid vaccination technique.⁹

Cook and colleagues used anthropomorphic data to evaluate the potential for injury to the subdeltoid/subacromial bursa and/or the axillary nerve.¹⁰ Based on these data, they recommended safe IM vaccine administration can be assured by using the midpoint of the deltoid muscle located midway between the acromion and deltoid tuberosity with the arm abducted to 60°.^10,11 In 46% of SIRVA cases described by Atanasoff and colleagues, patients reported that the vaccine was administered “too high.”⁴ The study also recommended that the clinician and the patient be in the seated position to ensure proper needle angle and location of administration.⁴ For most adults, a 1-inch needle is appropriate for vaccine administration in the deltoid; however, in females weighing < 70 kg and males < 75 kg, a 5/8-inch needle is recommended to avoid injury.⁷

Our 91-kg patient was appropriately administered his vaccine with a 1-inch needle. As he experienced immediate pain, it is unlikely that his symptoms were due to an immune-mediated process, as this would not be expected to occur immediately. Improper location of vaccine administration is a proposed mechanism of injury for our patient, though this cannot be confirmed by history alone. His prior history of traumatic injury to the opposite shoulder could represent a confounding factor as no prior imaging was available for the vaccine-affected shoulder. A preexisting shoulder abnormality or injury cannot be completely excluded, and it is possible that an underlying prior shoulder injury was aggravated postvaccination.

Evaluation and Treatment

There is no standardized approach for the evaluation of SIRVA to date. Awareness of SIRVA and a high index of suspicion are necessary to evaluate patients with shoulder concerns postvaccination. Laboratory evaluation should be considered to evaluate for other potential diagnoses (eg, infection, rheumatologic concerns). Routine X-rays are not helpful in cases of SIRVA. Ultrasound may be considered as it can show bursa abnormalities consistent with bursitis.² MRI of the affected shoulder may provide improved diagnostic capability if SIRVA is suspected. MRI findings vary but include intraosseous edema, bursitis, tendonitis, and rotator cuff tears.^4,12 Complete rotator cuff tears were found in 15% of cases reviewed by Atanasoff and colleagues.⁴ While there is no recommended timing for MRI, 63% of MRIs were performed within 3 months of symptom onset.⁴ As SIRVA is not a neurologic injury, nerve conduction, electromyographic studies, and neurologic evaluation or testing are expected to be normal.

Treatment of SIRVA and other vaccine-related shoulder injuries typically have involved pain management (eg, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents), intra-articular steroid injections, and physical therapy, though some patients never experience complete resolution of symptoms.^2,4,7 Both patients with vaccination-related shoulder dysfunction described by Bodor and colleagues improved after intra-articular triamcinolone injections, with up to 3 injections before complete resolution of pain in one patient.² Orthopedics evaluation may need to be considered for persistent symptoms. According to Atanasoff and colleagues, most patients were symptomatic for at least 6 months, and complete recovery was seen in less than one-third of patients.⁴ Although the development of SIRVA is not a contraindication to future doses of the presumed causative vaccine, subsequent vaccination should include careful consideration of other administration sites if possible (eg, vastus lateralis may be used for IM injections in adults) (Figure 4).

Reporting

A diagnosis or concern for SIRVA also should be reported to the VAERS, the national database established in order to detect possible safety problems with US-licensed vaccines. VAERS reports can be submitted by anyone with concerns for vaccine adverse reactions, including patients, caregivers, and health care professionals at vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html. Additional information regarding VICP can be obtained at www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html.

Military-Specific Issues

The military values readiness, which includes ensuring that active-duty members remain up-to-date on life-saving vaccinations. Immunization is of critical importance to mobility and success of the overall mission. Mobility processing lines where immunizations can be provided to multiple active-duty members can be a successful strategy for mass immunizations. Although the quick administration of immunizations maintains readiness and provides a medically necessary service, it also may increase the chances of incorrect vaccine placement in the deltoid, causing long-term shoulder immobility that may impact a service member’s retainability. The benefits of mobility processing lines can continue to outweigh the risks of immunization administration by ensuring proper staff training, seating both the administrator and recipient of vaccination, and selecting a proper needle length and site of administration specific to each recipient.

Conclusion

Correct administration of vaccines is of utmost importance in preventing SIRVA and other vaccine-related shoulder dysfunctions. Proper staff training and refresher training can help prevent vaccine-related shoulder injuries. Additionally, clinicians should be aware of this potential complication and maintain a high index of suspicion when evaluating patients with postvaccination shoulder complaints.

Localized reactions and transient pain at the site of vaccine administration are frequent and well-described occurrences that are typically short-lived and mild in nature. The most common findings at the injection site are soreness, erythema, and edema.¹ Although less common, generalized shoulder dysfunction after vaccine administration also has been reported. Bodor and colleagues described a peri-articular inflammatory response that led to shoulder pain and weakness.² A single case report by Kuether and colleagues described atraumatic osteonecrosis of the humeral head after H1N1 vaccine administration in the deltoid.³ In 2010, shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) was described by Atanasoff and colleagues as the rapid onset of shoulder pain and dysfunction persisting as a complication of deltoid muscle vaccination in a case series of 13 patients.⁴ In our report, we present a case of an active-duty male eventually diagnosed with SIRVA after influenza vaccination and discuss factors that may prevent vaccine-related shoulder injuries.

Case Presentation

A 31-year-old active-duty male presented to the Allergy clinic for evaluation of persistent left shoulder pain and decreased range of motion (ROM) following influenza vaccination 4 months prior. He reported a history of chronic low back and right shoulder pain. Although the patient had a traumatic injury to his right shoulder, which was corrected with surgery, he had no surgeries on the left shoulder. He reported no prior pain or known trauma to his left shoulder. He had no personal or family history of atopy or vaccine reactions.

The patient weighed 91 kg and received an intramuscular (IM) quadrivalent influenza vaccine with a 25-gauge, 1-inch needle during a mass influenza immunization. He recalled that the site of vaccination was slightly more than 3 cm below the top of the shoulder in a region correlating to the left deltoid. The vaccine was administered while he was standing with his arm extended, adducted, and internally rotated. The patient experienced intense pain immediately after the vaccination and noted decreased ROM. Initially, he dismissed the pain and decreased ROM as routine but sought medical attention when there was no improvement after 3 weeks.

Six weeks after the onset of symptoms, a magnetic resonance image (MRI) revealed tendinopathy of the left distal subscapularis, infraspinatus, supraspinatus, and teres minor tendon. These findings were suggestive of a small partial thickness tear of the supraspinatus (Figure 1), possible calcific tendinopathy of the distal teres minor (Figure 2), and underlying humeral head edema (Figure 3). The patient was evaluated by Orthopedics and experienced no relief from ibuprofen, celecoxib, and a steroid/lidocaine intra-articular injection. Laboratory studies included an unremarkable complete blood count and erythrocyte sedimentation rate. He was diagnosed with SIRVA and continued in physical therapy with incomplete resolution of symptoms 6 months postvaccination.

Discussion

According to a 2018 report issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, local reactions following immunizations are seen in up to 80% of administered vaccine doses.¹ While most of these reactions are mild, transient, cutaneous reactions, rarely these also may persist and impact quality of life significantly. SIRVA is one such process that can lead to persistent musculoskeletal dysfunction. SIRVA presents as shoulder pain and limited ROM that occurs after the administration of an injectable vaccine. In 2011, the Institute of Medicine determined that evidence supported a causal relationship between vaccine administration and deltoid bursitis.⁵

In 2017, SIRVA was included in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), a federal program that can provide compensation to individuals injured by certain vaccines.⁶ A diagnosis of SIRVA can be considered in patients who experience pain within 48 hours of vaccination, have no prior history of pain or dysfunction of the affected shoulder prior to vaccine administration, and have symptoms limited to the shoulder in which the vaccine was administered where no other abnormality is present to explain these symptoms (eg, brachial neuritis, other neuropathy). Currently, patients with back pain or musculoskeletal complaints that do not include the shoulder following deltoid vaccination do not meet the reporting criteria for SIRVA in the VICP.⁶

The exact prevalence or incidence of SIRVA is unknown. In a 2017 systematic review of the literature and the Spanish Pharmacovigilance System database, Martín Arias and colleagues found 45 cases of new onset, unilateral shoulder dysfunction without associated neuropathy or autoimmune conditions following vaccine administration. They noted a female to male predominance (71.1% vs 28.9%) with a mean age of 53.6 years (range 22-89 y). Most of the cases occurred following influenza vaccine (62%); pneumococcal vaccine was the next most common (13%).⁷ Shoulder injury also has been reported after tetanus-diphtheria toxoids, human papilloma virus, and hepatitis A virus vaccines.^4,7 The review noted that all patients had onset of pain within the first week following vaccination with the majority (81%) having pain in the first 24 hours. Two cases found in the Spanish database had pain onset 2 months postvaccination.⁷ Atanasoff and colleagues found that 93% of patients had pain onset within 24 hours of vaccination with 54% reporting immediate pain.⁴

The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) tracks reports of shoulder dysfunction following certain vaccinations, but the system is unable to establish causality. According to VAERS reporting, between 2010 and 2016, there were 1006 possible reports of shoulder dysfunction following inactivated influenza vaccination (IIV) compared with an estimated 130 million doses of IIV given each influenza season in the US.⁸

Bodor and Montalvo postulated that vaccine antigen was being over penetrated into the synovial space of the shoulder, as the subdeltoid/subacromial bursa is located a mere 0.8 to 1.6 cm below the skin surface in patients with healthy body mass index.² Atanasoff and colleagues expounded that antibodies from previous vaccination or natural infection may then form antigen-antibody complexes, creating prolonged local immune and inflammatory responses leading to bursitis or tendonitis.⁴ Martín Arias and colleagues hypothesized that improper injection technique, including wrong insertion angle, incorrect needle type/size, and failure to account for the patient’s physical characteristics were the most likely causes of SIRVA.⁷

Proper vaccine administration ensures that vaccinations are delivered in a safe and efficacious manner. Safe vaccination practices include the use of trained personnel who receive comprehensive, competency-based training regarding vaccine administration.¹ Aspiration prior to an injection is a practice that has not been evaluated fully. Given that the 2 routinely recommended locations for IM vaccines (deltoid muscle in adults or vastus lateralis muscle in infants) lack large blood vessels, the practice of aspiration prior to an IM vaccine is not currently deemed necessary.¹ Additional safe vaccine practices include the selection of appropriate needle length for muscle penetration and that anatomic landmarks determine the location of vaccination.¹ Despite this, in a survey of 100 medical professionals, half could not name any structure at risk from improper deltoid vaccination technique.⁹

Cook and colleagues used anthropomorphic data to evaluate the potential for injury to the subdeltoid/subacromial bursa and/or the axillary nerve.¹⁰ Based on these data, they recommended safe IM vaccine administration can be assured by using the midpoint of the deltoid muscle located midway between the acromion and deltoid tuberosity with the arm abducted to 60°.^10,11 In 46% of SIRVA cases described by Atanasoff and colleagues, patients reported that the vaccine was administered “too high.”⁴ The study also recommended that the clinician and the patient be in the seated position to ensure proper needle angle and location of administration.⁴ For most adults, a 1-inch needle is appropriate for vaccine administration in the deltoid; however, in females weighing < 70 kg and males < 75 kg, a 5/8-inch needle is recommended to avoid injury.⁷

Our 91-kg patient was appropriately administered his vaccine with a 1-inch needle. As he experienced immediate pain, it is unlikely that his symptoms were due to an immune-mediated process, as this would not be expected to occur immediately. Improper location of vaccine administration is a proposed mechanism of injury for our patient, though this cannot be confirmed by history alone. His prior history of traumatic injury to the opposite shoulder could represent a confounding factor as no prior imaging was available for the vaccine-affected shoulder. A preexisting shoulder abnormality or injury cannot be completely excluded, and it is possible that an underlying prior shoulder injury was aggravated postvaccination.

Evaluation and Treatment

There is no standardized approach for the evaluation of SIRVA to date. Awareness of SIRVA and a high index of suspicion are necessary to evaluate patients with shoulder concerns postvaccination. Laboratory evaluation should be considered to evaluate for other potential diagnoses (eg, infection, rheumatologic concerns). Routine X-rays are not helpful in cases of SIRVA. Ultrasound may be considered as it can show bursa abnormalities consistent with bursitis.² MRI of the affected shoulder may provide improved diagnostic capability if SIRVA is suspected. MRI findings vary but include intraosseous edema, bursitis, tendonitis, and rotator cuff tears.^4,12 Complete rotator cuff tears were found in 15% of cases reviewed by Atanasoff and colleagues.⁴ While there is no recommended timing for MRI, 63% of MRIs were performed within 3 months of symptom onset.⁴ As SIRVA is not a neurologic injury, nerve conduction, electromyographic studies, and neurologic evaluation or testing are expected to be normal.

Treatment of SIRVA and other vaccine-related shoulder injuries typically have involved pain management (eg, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents), intra-articular steroid injections, and physical therapy, though some patients never experience complete resolution of symptoms.^2,4,7 Both patients with vaccination-related shoulder dysfunction described by Bodor and colleagues improved after intra-articular triamcinolone injections, with up to 3 injections before complete resolution of pain in one patient.² Orthopedics evaluation may need to be considered for persistent symptoms. According to Atanasoff and colleagues, most patients were symptomatic for at least 6 months, and complete recovery was seen in less than one-third of patients.⁴ Although the development of SIRVA is not a contraindication to future doses of the presumed causative vaccine, subsequent vaccination should include careful consideration of other administration sites if possible (eg, vastus lateralis may be used for IM injections in adults) (Figure 4).

Reporting

A diagnosis or concern for SIRVA also should be reported to the VAERS, the national database established in order to detect possible safety problems with US-licensed vaccines. VAERS reports can be submitted by anyone with concerns for vaccine adverse reactions, including patients, caregivers, and health care professionals at vaers.hhs.gov/reportevent.html. Additional information regarding VICP can be obtained at www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html.

Military-Specific Issues

The military values readiness, which includes ensuring that active-duty members remain up-to-date on life-saving vaccinations. Immunization is of critical importance to mobility and success of the overall mission. Mobility processing lines where immunizations can be provided to multiple active-duty members can be a successful strategy for mass immunizations. Although the quick administration of immunizations maintains readiness and provides a medically necessary service, it also may increase the chances of incorrect vaccine placement in the deltoid, causing long-term shoulder immobility that may impact a service member’s retainability. The benefits of mobility processing lines can continue to outweigh the risks of immunization administration by ensuring proper staff training, seating both the administrator and recipient of vaccination, and selecting a proper needle length and site of administration specific to each recipient.

Conclusion

Correct administration of vaccines is of utmost importance in preventing SIRVA and other vaccine-related shoulder dysfunctions. Proper staff training and refresher training can help prevent vaccine-related shoulder injuries. Additionally, clinicians should be aware of this potential complication and maintain a high index of suspicion when evaluating patients with postvaccination shoulder complaints.

The term cataract is derived from the Latin word “catarractes,” which means “waterfall,” as the foamy white opacity of an advanced cataract can be likened to a tempestuous cascade. Cataract is the leading cause of preventable blindness worldwide.^1,2 It is no surprise, therefore, that cataract surgery is the most frequently performed ophthalmic surgical procedure worldwide. Cataract surgeries may reach 30 million annual cases by 2020.³ Given the large number of surgeries being performed, postsurgical complications are not uncommon.

Early postoperative complications from lens exchange (cataract) surgery include increased intraocular pressure (IOP), corneal edema, and corneal wound leakage.⁴ Corneal wound leakage is not uncommon; one study showed that, in 100 cases, almost one-third of incisions leaked.⁵ A 2014 prospective study of 500 postcataract surgery eyes revealed that 48.8% had fluid egress.⁶ Early detection is important so that efforts to restore corneal integrity can immediately be implemented. If not caught early, patients are at risk for developing a cascade of sequelae, including endophthalmitis.

The majority of corneal wound leaks postphacoemulsification are self-limiting and self-sealing. Moderate wound leaks require treatment, as in the following case. Strategies to detect, image, and treat wound leaks are covered in this discussion.

Case Presentation

A 69-year-old male veteran presented with no complaints for a 1-day postoperative visit following right eye phacoemulsification cataract extraction. His best corrected visual acuity in the right eye was 20/40, and his pinhole visual acuity was 20/25+2. On slit-lamp examination, the temporally located main incision appeared well-adhered and was found to be Seidel negative; however, the inferior paracentesis wound was found to be Seidel positive, demonstrating a slow leak. Intraocular pressure (IOP) measured with tonopen was 9 mm Hg.

A bandage soft contact lens was placed on the eye. The patient was instructed not to rub or place any pressure on the eye and to avoid bending and heavy lifting. He was also instructed to continue his postoperative medications (prednisolone 1% every 2 hours and polymyxin B sulfate 4 times daily) in his right eye. A follow-up appointment was scheduled for the next day.

The patient presented for his postoperative day-2 visit with a best corrected visual acuity in the right eye of 20/20. He reported no visual problems, no eye pain, and mentioned that he had had a comfortable night sleep. A slit-lamp examination revealed trace diffuse injection in the operative eye, predominantly central Descemet membrane folds, 1+ stromal edema, and a Seidel negative main incision wound. However, the inferior paracentesis wound showed a moderate leak (Seidel positive), and the anterior chamber showed a 1+ cell and flare. Goldmann tonometry revealed an IOP of 5 mm Hg, indicating hypotony.

Anterior segment cube 512 x 128 optical coherence tomography (OCT) was obtained with the bandage contact lens (Figures 1 and 2), and then repeated with the bandage contact lens removed (Figures 3 and 4). OCT imaging confirmed epithelial and endothelial gaping, loss of coaptation, and a localized detachment of the Descemet membrane. The veteran was referred to his surgeon that same day, and 2 limbal vicryl sutures were placed. The patient was instructed to continue prednisolone 1% 4 times daily and polymyxin B sulfate every 2 hours; erythromycin ointment 3 times daily was added to his regimen.

He was scheduled for a follow-up examination 1 week later. At that visit, the wound was no longer leaking and IOP had risen to a preoperative value of 17 mm Hg. The corneal sutures were removed at the 1-month postoperative examination and a follow-up was scheduled for 4 months later. An anterior segment OCT was obtained (Figure 5).

Discussion

In July 1967, Charles Kelman, MD, suggested using a dental ultrasonic tool, normally employed to clean teeth, to fragment the nucleus of the crystalline lens. Dr. Kelman’s first operation using phacoemulsification on a human eye took 3 hours.⁷ As the procedure for cataract removal has been refined, complication rates and surgical times have vastly improved.

Phacoemulsification is the most commonly performed outpatient surgery in the US; about 3 million cases are performed annually. Due to the high volume of cases, adverse events (AEs) are not uncommon. The incidence of complications following phacoemulsification is < 5%; the frequency of severe complications has been estimated at < 0.7%.⁸ Severe complications include endophthalmitis, suprachoroidal hemorrhage, and/or retinal detachment.⁹ Studies have shown a decline in rates of sight-threatening AEs from 1994 to 2006.⁹ A retrospective study of 45,082 veterans from 2005 to 2007 identified that a preoperative disease burden such as diabetes mellitus, chronic pulmonary disease, age-related macular degeneration, and diabetes with ophthalmic manifestations, was positively associated with a greater risk of cataract surgical complications.¹⁰

Complications

The level of a surgeon’s proficiency with phacoemulsification is directly correlated to the number of operations performed; there is a lower complication rate among more experienced surgeons, including those who work in high-volume settings.^11,12 One study identified that the AE rate within 14 days of surgery was 0.8% for surgeons performing 50 to 250 cataract surgeries per year, but only 0.1% for those performing > 1000 cataract surgeries annually.¹²

Potential postoperative lens exchange complications include increased IOP, corneal wound leakage, corneal edema, bullous keratopathy, cystoid macular edema, retinal detachment, and endophthalmitis (Table 1). A corneal wound leak can provide a potential ingress for bacteria, putting the patient at risk for endophthalmitis, perhaps the most devastating complication following cataract surgery.

Endophthalmitis

Endophthalmitis has been reported to occur in .001% to .327% of patients during postoperative care.^5,13-17 Early detection is important to maintain corneal integrity and prevent a cascade of detrimental ocular sequalae including the potential for endophthalmitis. According to Zaida and colleagues, endophthalmitis occurred in fewer than 1 of 1000 consecutive cases.¹⁴ A leaking clear corneal incision wound on the first day postoperatively has been associated with a 44-fold increased risk of endophthalmitis.¹³

Causes of endophthalmitis

In a retrospective case-controlled series of 57 patients with postcataract endophthalmitis, implantation of an intraocular lens with a resultant wound abnormality was thought to be the causative factor in 5%.¹⁷ Another source of endophthalmitis can be the intraocular lens (IOL), which may act as a vector for bacteria. By placing the IOL against the conjunctiva or exposing it to the theater air during surgery, bacteria can be introduced prior to implantation.¹⁷ Immunosuppressive treatment is the only patient antecedent factor that can be considered a predictor for endopthalmitis.¹⁷

The internal corneal seal is IOP dependent, and postoperative ocular hypotony may cause a seemingly watertight wound to leak. Taban and colleagues used anterior segment OCT to image numerous self-sealing incisions. They found that the corneal incision wound more tightly seals at higher IOPs. Additionally, more perpendicular (larger angle) incisions seal better at a lower IOP while less perpendicular (smaller angle) incisions seal better at a higher IOP (Figure 6).¹⁸

Incision Placement

Studies have shown that the main incision site is more clinically competent than is the side port incision site, as in our case study.¹⁹ Side-port incisions have a 1- or 2-plane architectural profile in contrast to the 3-plane profile typical of a main incision.¹⁹ Recent advances including the conversion to clear-corneal incisions of diminishing size, techniques used for wound construction, phacoemulsification machine design, and small-incision IOLs, should further reduce the prevalence and complications of wound compromise.²⁰

Seidel Testing

Seidel testing is the most common method to evaluate corneal wound integrity and identify leaks. A drop of topical anesthetic is instilled in the eye and then a fluorescein strip (not fluorescein sodium and benoxinate hydrochloride ophthalmic solution, which may become less sterile since it has a multiuse container) is applied to the superior conjunctiva. The clinician then looks for evidence of fluid egress using the cobalt blue filter. The patient is instructed to blink once. Fluid egress appears as a black stream as the fluorescein dye becomes diluted by aqueous humor escaping the nonintact wound and the appearance of bright green dye surrounds the leak site. The term Seidel positive indicates a leak. An estimate should be made of the rate and volume of fluid exiting the wound.

Gonioscopy

Gonioscopy can be used to evaluate the postsurgical incision, more specifically for identification and management of internal incision wound gape. On gonioscopy, internal wound gape appears as an elongated oval opening resembling a fish mouth. If internal incision wound gape is identified gonioscopically before surgery is complete, the leak can be managed intraoperatively. The surgeon can irrigate along the length of the incision to remove cortical fragments or viscoelastic that may cause internal wound gaping. If unsuccessful, rapidly deepening the anterior chamber with balanced salt solution through the paracentesis incision may be employed. These methods may improve wound stability, reduce risk of postoperative hyphema, lower the incidence of endophthalmitis, and lessen the likelihood of late against-the-rule drift.²¹

Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography

Instances when Seidel testing was negative despite actual wound gaping have been described.^22,23 Anterior segment OCT is useful to evaluate incision architecture. A 2007 United Kingdom study investigated the corneal architecture in the immediate postoperative period following phacoemulsification using anterior segment OCT. This study showed the benefits of identifying architectural features such as epithelial gaping, endothelial gaping, stripping of Descemet membrane, and loss of coaptation. These features were found to be more common at low IOP and could represent a significant risk factor for endophthalmitis.²⁴ Another study published by Behrens and colleagues indicated that a localized detachment of Descemet membrane may be more common than observed with slit-lamp (Figure 7). Corneal gaping, especially if along the entire length of the surgical wound, may lead to inadvertent bacterial access into the anterior chamber.²⁵ 

Anterior segment OCT imaging was first described by Izatt and colleagues in 1994.²⁶ Unlike posterior segment OCT, anterior segment OCT requires a greater depth of field and higher energy levels as images are commonly distorted by refraction at boundaries where the refractive index changes. Longer infrared wavelengths improve the penetration through tissues that scatter light, such as the sclera and limbus, which allows visualization, for example, of the iridocorneal angle.^27,28

Two main scan patterns are used for anterior segment OCT: 512 x 128 cube scan (4-mm width x 4-mm length) and 5-line raster (3-mm length) with adjustable rotation and spacing. A recent software update allows measurement of corneal thickness, visualization of anterior chamber angle structures along with topographic analysis, anterior and posterior elevation maps of the cornea, and reliable pachymetric maps.^29,30 The anterior segment cube acquires a series of 128 horizontal scan lines each composed of 512 A-scans. These high-definition scans acquire vertical and horizontal directions composed of 1024 A-scans each. This cube may be used to measure corneal thickness and visualize corneal architecture, creating a 3-D image of the data (Figure 8). The anterior segment 5-line raster scans through 5 parallel lines of equal length to view high-resolution images of the anterior chamber angle and cornea. Each line, fixed at 3-mm in length, is composed of 4096 A-scans.³¹ Anterior segment cube OCT allows identification of subtle variations in incision architecture at different locations across the width of the OCT image.

Bandage Soft Contact Lens

Upon reviewing the anterior segment OCT images of our patient with the bandage contact lens in place, it was evident that the adherent ocular bandage was protecting the incision. A tighter fitting bandage contact lens is ideal and adheres firmly to any area of epithelial damage and epithelial gaping to help seal the incision, protecting the wound and improving structural integrity. The bandage contact lens is gradually replaced by new cells via re-epithelialization; thus, it behaves as an adjunct to natural wound healing. A bandage contact lens also improves patient comfort.

It is hypothesized that a bandage contact lens improves the structural integrity of the incision site and helps prevent leaking, hypotony, and minor wound leaks. One study revealed a statistically significant lower IOP in nonbandage contact lens patients by an average of 6 mm Hg (mean [SD] 13.4 mm Hg [5.3]; range, 5 - 23 mm Hg) vs patients with a bandage contact lens (mean [SD] 19.4 mm Hg [5.9]; range, 11 - 29 mm Hg) in the immediate postoperative period.³² The authors suggested that the bandage contact lens may prevent microleaks, resulting in a higher IOP.

Aqueous Suppressants

Aqueous suppressants are a great option when IOP is abnormally elevated by decreasing the IOP and allowing the cornea to heal and self-seal.Effective aqueous suppressants are β blockers and carbonic anhydrase inhibitors.

After phacoemulsification ocular hypotony (< 6 mm Hg) occurs most commonly due to wound leakage or excessive intraocular inflammation. However, with the presence of corneal wound leakage and ocular hypotony, aqueous suppressants are not the best option.

Further Management of Wound Leaks

Management of a postoperative wound leak will vary based on severity. The majority of mild leaks are self-sealing. Anterior segment OCT helps the clinician to identify microleaks in an otherwise Seidel negative eye. If wound leakage is moderate with a formed anterior chamber, the use of a bandage contact lens is a good option, as can be the prescription of aqueous suppressants, depending on IOP.³³

If the anterior chamber is flat, iris prolapse is apparent, or extremely low IOP exists, the patient needs to be referred to the surgeon. Current standard of care directs the surgeon to use sutures to further manage corneal wound leak. However, several studies have recognized the increased risk of suture-related complications, such as induced astigmatism, corneal opacities, incomplete wound closure, and corneal neovascularization.^6,34-38 Other wound closure options include polyethylene glycol-based products, corneal welding, cyanoacrylate, or fibrin (Table 2).³⁹ Traditionally nylon sutures have been used for clear corneal incision wound closure. However, tissue adhesives are gaining popularity as a substitute for sutures in wound closure.⁴⁰

Cyanoacrylate

Numerous studies have been published on the efficacy of cyanoacrylate as a substitute for sutures, specifically in clear corneal incisions. AEs of cyanoacrylate include a transient foreign-body sensation and diffuse or focal bulbar conjunctival hyperemia.^41,42 Shigemitsu and Majima found that fibrin and cyanoacrylate glue had tensile strength similar to sutures when used in cataract surgery.39 
Polyethylene glycol-based products, also used in artificial tears and contact lens materials, may also help seal wound leaks. Another agent is ReSure (Ocular Therapeutix, Bedford, MA), an FDA-approved synthetic, polyethylene glycol hydrogel sealant that is 90% water after polymerization. ReSure has been shown to be safe and effective in sealing cataract surgical clear corneal incisions.^6,43 ReSure takes about 20 seconds to prepare, and placement is aided by the use of a blue dye that dissipates within hours. This hydrogel will gradually slough off in the tears once the tissue has fully regenerated; there is no need to remove the sealant.⁴⁴

Rossi and colleagues evaluated the efficacy of corneal welding to close wounds after cataract surgery. The technique involves laser-assisted closure of the corneal wound(s) by a diode laser that welds the stroma.⁴⁵ Corneal welding takes seconds to achieve good closure without significant astigmatism or inflammation; however very careful application of the light absorbing dyes is required as they are toxic if allowed to enter the anterior chamber.^45-47

Conclusion

Optometrists may be called to manage patients during both the preoperative and postoperative phases of cataract surgical care. Those who participate in postoperative care should carefully evaluate for the presence of wound leak or wound gape as a potential complication. The OCT may be employed to evaluate patients suspected of having these leaks or gapes. Proficiency in the interpretation of OCT results and more traditional evaluation methods allows for successful detection of wound leaks or gapes. The timely diagnosis and treatment of postoperative wound leaks allow for the best possible outcomes for cataract surgery patients.

The term cataract is derived from the Latin word “catarractes,” which means “waterfall,” as the foamy white opacity of an advanced cataract can be likened to a tempestuous cascade. Cataract is the leading cause of preventable blindness worldwide.^1,2 It is no surprise, therefore, that cataract surgery is the most frequently performed ophthalmic surgical procedure worldwide. Cataract surgeries may reach 30 million annual cases by 2020.³ Given the large number of surgeries being performed, postsurgical complications are not uncommon.

Early postoperative complications from lens exchange (cataract) surgery include increased intraocular pressure (IOP), corneal edema, and corneal wound leakage.⁴ Corneal wound leakage is not uncommon; one study showed that, in 100 cases, almost one-third of incisions leaked.⁵ A 2014 prospective study of 500 postcataract surgery eyes revealed that 48.8% had fluid egress.⁶ Early detection is important so that efforts to restore corneal integrity can immediately be implemented. If not caught early, patients are at risk for developing a cascade of sequelae, including endophthalmitis.

The majority of corneal wound leaks postphacoemulsification are self-limiting and self-sealing. Moderate wound leaks require treatment, as in the following case. Strategies to detect, image, and treat wound leaks are covered in this discussion.

Case Presentation

A 69-year-old male veteran presented with no complaints for a 1-day postoperative visit following right eye phacoemulsification cataract extraction. His best corrected visual acuity in the right eye was 20/40, and his pinhole visual acuity was 20/25+2. On slit-lamp examination, the temporally located main incision appeared well-adhered and was found to be Seidel negative; however, the inferior paracentesis wound was found to be Seidel positive, demonstrating a slow leak. Intraocular pressure (IOP) measured with tonopen was 9 mm Hg.

A bandage soft contact lens was placed on the eye. The patient was instructed not to rub or place any pressure on the eye and to avoid bending and heavy lifting. He was also instructed to continue his postoperative medications (prednisolone 1% every 2 hours and polymyxin B sulfate 4 times daily) in his right eye. A follow-up appointment was scheduled for the next day.

The patient presented for his postoperative day-2 visit with a best corrected visual acuity in the right eye of 20/20. He reported no visual problems, no eye pain, and mentioned that he had had a comfortable night sleep. A slit-lamp examination revealed trace diffuse injection in the operative eye, predominantly central Descemet membrane folds, 1+ stromal edema, and a Seidel negative main incision wound. However, the inferior paracentesis wound showed a moderate leak (Seidel positive), and the anterior chamber showed a 1+ cell and flare. Goldmann tonometry revealed an IOP of 5 mm Hg, indicating hypotony.

Anterior segment cube 512 x 128 optical coherence tomography (OCT) was obtained with the bandage contact lens (Figures 1 and 2), and then repeated with the bandage contact lens removed (Figures 3 and 4). OCT imaging confirmed epithelial and endothelial gaping, loss of coaptation, and a localized detachment of the Descemet membrane. The veteran was referred to his surgeon that same day, and 2 limbal vicryl sutures were placed. The patient was instructed to continue prednisolone 1% 4 times daily and polymyxin B sulfate every 2 hours; erythromycin ointment 3 times daily was added to his regimen.

He was scheduled for a follow-up examination 1 week later. At that visit, the wound was no longer leaking and IOP had risen to a preoperative value of 17 mm Hg. The corneal sutures were removed at the 1-month postoperative examination and a follow-up was scheduled for 4 months later. An anterior segment OCT was obtained (Figure 5).

Discussion

In July 1967, Charles Kelman, MD, suggested using a dental ultrasonic tool, normally employed to clean teeth, to fragment the nucleus of the crystalline lens. Dr. Kelman’s first operation using phacoemulsification on a human eye took 3 hours.⁷ As the procedure for cataract removal has been refined, complication rates and surgical times have vastly improved.

Phacoemulsification is the most commonly performed outpatient surgery in the US; about 3 million cases are performed annually. Due to the high volume of cases, adverse events (AEs) are not uncommon. The incidence of complications following phacoemulsification is < 5%; the frequency of severe complications has been estimated at < 0.7%.⁸ Severe complications include endophthalmitis, suprachoroidal hemorrhage, and/or retinal detachment.⁹ Studies have shown a decline in rates of sight-threatening AEs from 1994 to 2006.⁹ A retrospective study of 45,082 veterans from 2005 to 2007 identified that a preoperative disease burden such as diabetes mellitus, chronic pulmonary disease, age-related macular degeneration, and diabetes with ophthalmic manifestations, was positively associated with a greater risk of cataract surgical complications.¹⁰

Complications

The level of a surgeon’s proficiency with phacoemulsification is directly correlated to the number of operations performed; there is a lower complication rate among more experienced surgeons, including those who work in high-volume settings.^11,12 One study identified that the AE rate within 14 days of surgery was 0.8% for surgeons performing 50 to 250 cataract surgeries per year, but only 0.1% for those performing > 1000 cataract surgeries annually.¹²

Potential postoperative lens exchange complications include increased IOP, corneal wound leakage, corneal edema, bullous keratopathy, cystoid macular edema, retinal detachment, and endophthalmitis (Table 1). A corneal wound leak can provide a potential ingress for bacteria, putting the patient at risk for endophthalmitis, perhaps the most devastating complication following cataract surgery.

Endophthalmitis

Endophthalmitis has been reported to occur in .001% to .327% of patients during postoperative care.^5,13-17 Early detection is important to maintain corneal integrity and prevent a cascade of detrimental ocular sequalae including the potential for endophthalmitis. According to Zaida and colleagues, endophthalmitis occurred in fewer than 1 of 1000 consecutive cases.¹⁴ A leaking clear corneal incision wound on the first day postoperatively has been associated with a 44-fold increased risk of endophthalmitis.¹³

Causes of endophthalmitis

In a retrospective case-controlled series of 57 patients with postcataract endophthalmitis, implantation of an intraocular lens with a resultant wound abnormality was thought to be the causative factor in 5%.¹⁷ Another source of endophthalmitis can be the intraocular lens (IOL), which may act as a vector for bacteria. By placing the IOL against the conjunctiva or exposing it to the theater air during surgery, bacteria can be introduced prior to implantation.¹⁷ Immunosuppressive treatment is the only patient antecedent factor that can be considered a predictor for endopthalmitis.¹⁷

The internal corneal seal is IOP dependent, and postoperative ocular hypotony may cause a seemingly watertight wound to leak. Taban and colleagues used anterior segment OCT to image numerous self-sealing incisions. They found that the corneal incision wound more tightly seals at higher IOPs. Additionally, more perpendicular (larger angle) incisions seal better at a lower IOP while less perpendicular (smaller angle) incisions seal better at a higher IOP (Figure 6).¹⁸

Incision Placement

Studies have shown that the main incision site is more clinically competent than is the side port incision site, as in our case study.¹⁹ Side-port incisions have a 1- or 2-plane architectural profile in contrast to the 3-plane profile typical of a main incision.¹⁹ Recent advances including the conversion to clear-corneal incisions of diminishing size, techniques used for wound construction, phacoemulsification machine design, and small-incision IOLs, should further reduce the prevalence and complications of wound compromise.²⁰

Seidel Testing

Seidel testing is the most common method to evaluate corneal wound integrity and identify leaks. A drop of topical anesthetic is instilled in the eye and then a fluorescein strip (not fluorescein sodium and benoxinate hydrochloride ophthalmic solution, which may become less sterile since it has a multiuse container) is applied to the superior conjunctiva. The clinician then looks for evidence of fluid egress using the cobalt blue filter. The patient is instructed to blink once. Fluid egress appears as a black stream as the fluorescein dye becomes diluted by aqueous humor escaping the nonintact wound and the appearance of bright green dye surrounds the leak site. The term Seidel positive indicates a leak. An estimate should be made of the rate and volume of fluid exiting the wound.

Gonioscopy

Gonioscopy can be used to evaluate the postsurgical incision, more specifically for identification and management of internal incision wound gape. On gonioscopy, internal wound gape appears as an elongated oval opening resembling a fish mouth. If internal incision wound gape is identified gonioscopically before surgery is complete, the leak can be managed intraoperatively. The surgeon can irrigate along the length of the incision to remove cortical fragments or viscoelastic that may cause internal wound gaping. If unsuccessful, rapidly deepening the anterior chamber with balanced salt solution through the paracentesis incision may be employed. These methods may improve wound stability, reduce risk of postoperative hyphema, lower the incidence of endophthalmitis, and lessen the likelihood of late against-the-rule drift.²¹

Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography

Instances when Seidel testing was negative despite actual wound gaping have been described.^22,23 Anterior segment OCT is useful to evaluate incision architecture. A 2007 United Kingdom study investigated the corneal architecture in the immediate postoperative period following phacoemulsification using anterior segment OCT. This study showed the benefits of identifying architectural features such as epithelial gaping, endothelial gaping, stripping of Descemet membrane, and loss of coaptation. These features were found to be more common at low IOP and could represent a significant risk factor for endophthalmitis.²⁴ Another study published by Behrens and colleagues indicated that a localized detachment of Descemet membrane may be more common than observed with slit-lamp (Figure 7). Corneal gaping, especially if along the entire length of the surgical wound, may lead to inadvertent bacterial access into the anterior chamber.²⁵ 

Anterior segment OCT imaging was first described by Izatt and colleagues in 1994.²⁶ Unlike posterior segment OCT, anterior segment OCT requires a greater depth of field and higher energy levels as images are commonly distorted by refraction at boundaries where the refractive index changes. Longer infrared wavelengths improve the penetration through tissues that scatter light, such as the sclera and limbus, which allows visualization, for example, of the iridocorneal angle.^27,28

Two main scan patterns are used for anterior segment OCT: 512 x 128 cube scan (4-mm width x 4-mm length) and 5-line raster (3-mm length) with adjustable rotation and spacing. A recent software update allows measurement of corneal thickness, visualization of anterior chamber angle structures along with topographic analysis, anterior and posterior elevation maps of the cornea, and reliable pachymetric maps.^29,30 The anterior segment cube acquires a series of 128 horizontal scan lines each composed of 512 A-scans. These high-definition scans acquire vertical and horizontal directions composed of 1024 A-scans each. This cube may be used to measure corneal thickness and visualize corneal architecture, creating a 3-D image of the data (Figure 8). The anterior segment 5-line raster scans through 5 parallel lines of equal length to view high-resolution images of the anterior chamber angle and cornea. Each line, fixed at 3-mm in length, is composed of 4096 A-scans.³¹ Anterior segment cube OCT allows identification of subtle variations in incision architecture at different locations across the width of the OCT image.

Bandage Soft Contact Lens

Upon reviewing the anterior segment OCT images of our patient with the bandage contact lens in place, it was evident that the adherent ocular bandage was protecting the incision. A tighter fitting bandage contact lens is ideal and adheres firmly to any area of epithelial damage and epithelial gaping to help seal the incision, protecting the wound and improving structural integrity. The bandage contact lens is gradually replaced by new cells via re-epithelialization; thus, it behaves as an adjunct to natural wound healing. A bandage contact lens also improves patient comfort.

It is hypothesized that a bandage contact lens improves the structural integrity of the incision site and helps prevent leaking, hypotony, and minor wound leaks. One study revealed a statistically significant lower IOP in nonbandage contact lens patients by an average of 6 mm Hg (mean [SD] 13.4 mm Hg [5.3]; range, 5 - 23 mm Hg) vs patients with a bandage contact lens (mean [SD] 19.4 mm Hg [5.9]; range, 11 - 29 mm Hg) in the immediate postoperative period.³² The authors suggested that the bandage contact lens may prevent microleaks, resulting in a higher IOP.

Aqueous Suppressants

Aqueous suppressants are a great option when IOP is abnormally elevated by decreasing the IOP and allowing the cornea to heal and self-seal.Effective aqueous suppressants are β blockers and carbonic anhydrase inhibitors.

After phacoemulsification ocular hypotony (< 6 mm Hg) occurs most commonly due to wound leakage or excessive intraocular inflammation. However, with the presence of corneal wound leakage and ocular hypotony, aqueous suppressants are not the best option.

Further Management of Wound Leaks

Management of a postoperative wound leak will vary based on severity. The majority of mild leaks are self-sealing. Anterior segment OCT helps the clinician to identify microleaks in an otherwise Seidel negative eye. If wound leakage is moderate with a formed anterior chamber, the use of a bandage contact lens is a good option, as can be the prescription of aqueous suppressants, depending on IOP.³³

If the anterior chamber is flat, iris prolapse is apparent, or extremely low IOP exists, the patient needs to be referred to the surgeon. Current standard of care directs the surgeon to use sutures to further manage corneal wound leak. However, several studies have recognized the increased risk of suture-related complications, such as induced astigmatism, corneal opacities, incomplete wound closure, and corneal neovascularization.^6,34-38 Other wound closure options include polyethylene glycol-based products, corneal welding, cyanoacrylate, or fibrin (Table 2).³⁹ Traditionally nylon sutures have been used for clear corneal incision wound closure. However, tissue adhesives are gaining popularity as a substitute for sutures in wound closure.⁴⁰

Cyanoacrylate

Numerous studies have been published on the efficacy of cyanoacrylate as a substitute for sutures, specifically in clear corneal incisions. AEs of cyanoacrylate include a transient foreign-body sensation and diffuse or focal bulbar conjunctival hyperemia.^41,42 Shigemitsu and Majima found that fibrin and cyanoacrylate glue had tensile strength similar to sutures when used in cataract surgery.39 
Polyethylene glycol-based products, also used in artificial tears and contact lens materials, may also help seal wound leaks. Another agent is ReSure (Ocular Therapeutix, Bedford, MA), an FDA-approved synthetic, polyethylene glycol hydrogel sealant that is 90% water after polymerization. ReSure has been shown to be safe and effective in sealing cataract surgical clear corneal incisions.^6,43 ReSure takes about 20 seconds to prepare, and placement is aided by the use of a blue dye that dissipates within hours. This hydrogel will gradually slough off in the tears once the tissue has fully regenerated; there is no need to remove the sealant.⁴⁴

Rossi and colleagues evaluated the efficacy of corneal welding to close wounds after cataract surgery. The technique involves laser-assisted closure of the corneal wound(s) by a diode laser that welds the stroma.⁴⁵ Corneal welding takes seconds to achieve good closure without significant astigmatism or inflammation; however very careful application of the light absorbing dyes is required as they are toxic if allowed to enter the anterior chamber.^45-47

Conclusion

Optometrists may be called to manage patients during both the preoperative and postoperative phases of cataract surgical care. Those who participate in postoperative care should carefully evaluate for the presence of wound leak or wound gape as a potential complication. The OCT may be employed to evaluate patients suspected of having these leaks or gapes. Proficiency in the interpretation of OCT results and more traditional evaluation methods allows for successful detection of wound leaks or gapes. The timely diagnosis and treatment of postoperative wound leaks allow for the best possible outcomes for cataract surgery patients.

The term cataract is derived from the Latin word “catarractes,” which means “waterfall,” as the foamy white opacity of an advanced cataract can be likened to a tempestuous cascade. Cataract is the leading cause of preventable blindness worldwide.^1,2 It is no surprise, therefore, that cataract surgery is the most frequently performed ophthalmic surgical procedure worldwide. Cataract surgeries may reach 30 million annual cases by 2020.³ Given the large number of surgeries being performed, postsurgical complications are not uncommon.

Early postoperative complications from lens exchange (cataract) surgery include increased intraocular pressure (IOP), corneal edema, and corneal wound leakage.⁴ Corneal wound leakage is not uncommon; one study showed that, in 100 cases, almost one-third of incisions leaked.⁵ A 2014 prospective study of 500 postcataract surgery eyes revealed that 48.8% had fluid egress.⁶ Early detection is important so that efforts to restore corneal integrity can immediately be implemented. If not caught early, patients are at risk for developing a cascade of sequelae, including endophthalmitis.

The majority of corneal wound leaks postphacoemulsification are self-limiting and self-sealing. Moderate wound leaks require treatment, as in the following case. Strategies to detect, image, and treat wound leaks are covered in this discussion.

Case Presentation

A 69-year-old male veteran presented with no complaints for a 1-day postoperative visit following right eye phacoemulsification cataract extraction. His best corrected visual acuity in the right eye was 20/40, and his pinhole visual acuity was 20/25+2. On slit-lamp examination, the temporally located main incision appeared well-adhered and was found to be Seidel negative; however, the inferior paracentesis wound was found to be Seidel positive, demonstrating a slow leak. Intraocular pressure (IOP) measured with tonopen was 9 mm Hg.

A bandage soft contact lens was placed on the eye. The patient was instructed not to rub or place any pressure on the eye and to avoid bending and heavy lifting. He was also instructed to continue his postoperative medications (prednisolone 1% every 2 hours and polymyxin B sulfate 4 times daily) in his right eye. A follow-up appointment was scheduled for the next day.

The patient presented for his postoperative day-2 visit with a best corrected visual acuity in the right eye of 20/20. He reported no visual problems, no eye pain, and mentioned that he had had a comfortable night sleep. A slit-lamp examination revealed trace diffuse injection in the operative eye, predominantly central Descemet membrane folds, 1+ stromal edema, and a Seidel negative main incision wound. However, the inferior paracentesis wound showed a moderate leak (Seidel positive), and the anterior chamber showed a 1+ cell and flare. Goldmann tonometry revealed an IOP of 5 mm Hg, indicating hypotony.

Anterior segment cube 512 x 128 optical coherence tomography (OCT) was obtained with the bandage contact lens (Figures 1 and 2), and then repeated with the bandage contact lens removed (Figures 3 and 4). OCT imaging confirmed epithelial and endothelial gaping, loss of coaptation, and a localized detachment of the Descemet membrane. The veteran was referred to his surgeon that same day, and 2 limbal vicryl sutures were placed. The patient was instructed to continue prednisolone 1% 4 times daily and polymyxin B sulfate every 2 hours; erythromycin ointment 3 times daily was added to his regimen.

He was scheduled for a follow-up examination 1 week later. At that visit, the wound was no longer leaking and IOP had risen to a preoperative value of 17 mm Hg. The corneal sutures were removed at the 1-month postoperative examination and a follow-up was scheduled for 4 months later. An anterior segment OCT was obtained (Figure 5).

Discussion

In July 1967, Charles Kelman, MD, suggested using a dental ultrasonic tool, normally employed to clean teeth, to fragment the nucleus of the crystalline lens. Dr. Kelman’s first operation using phacoemulsification on a human eye took 3 hours.⁷ As the procedure for cataract removal has been refined, complication rates and surgical times have vastly improved.

Phacoemulsification is the most commonly performed outpatient surgery in the US; about 3 million cases are performed annually. Due to the high volume of cases, adverse events (AEs) are not uncommon. The incidence of complications following phacoemulsification is < 5%; the frequency of severe complications has been estimated at < 0.7%.⁸ Severe complications include endophthalmitis, suprachoroidal hemorrhage, and/or retinal detachment.⁹ Studies have shown a decline in rates of sight-threatening AEs from 1994 to 2006.⁹ A retrospective study of 45,082 veterans from 2005 to 2007 identified that a preoperative disease burden such as diabetes mellitus, chronic pulmonary disease, age-related macular degeneration, and diabetes with ophthalmic manifestations, was positively associated with a greater risk of cataract surgical complications.¹⁰

Complications

The level of a surgeon’s proficiency with phacoemulsification is directly correlated to the number of operations performed; there is a lower complication rate among more experienced surgeons, including those who work in high-volume settings.^11,12 One study identified that the AE rate within 14 days of surgery was 0.8% for surgeons performing 50 to 250 cataract surgeries per year, but only 0.1% for those performing > 1000 cataract surgeries annually.¹²

Potential postoperative lens exchange complications include increased IOP, corneal wound leakage, corneal edema, bullous keratopathy, cystoid macular edema, retinal detachment, and endophthalmitis (Table 1). A corneal wound leak can provide a potential ingress for bacteria, putting the patient at risk for endophthalmitis, perhaps the most devastating complication following cataract surgery.

Endophthalmitis

Endophthalmitis has been reported to occur in .001% to .327% of patients during postoperative care.^5,13-17 Early detection is important to maintain corneal integrity and prevent a cascade of detrimental ocular sequalae including the potential for endophthalmitis. According to Zaida and colleagues, endophthalmitis occurred in fewer than 1 of 1000 consecutive cases.¹⁴ A leaking clear corneal incision wound on the first day postoperatively has been associated with a 44-fold increased risk of endophthalmitis.¹³

Causes of endophthalmitis

In a retrospective case-controlled series of 57 patients with postcataract endophthalmitis, implantation of an intraocular lens with a resultant wound abnormality was thought to be the causative factor in 5%.¹⁷ Another source of endophthalmitis can be the intraocular lens (IOL), which may act as a vector for bacteria. By placing the IOL against the conjunctiva or exposing it to the theater air during surgery, bacteria can be introduced prior to implantation.¹⁷ Immunosuppressive treatment is the only patient antecedent factor that can be considered a predictor for endopthalmitis.¹⁷

The internal corneal seal is IOP dependent, and postoperative ocular hypotony may cause a seemingly watertight wound to leak. Taban and colleagues used anterior segment OCT to image numerous self-sealing incisions. They found that the corneal incision wound more tightly seals at higher IOPs. Additionally, more perpendicular (larger angle) incisions seal better at a lower IOP while less perpendicular (smaller angle) incisions seal better at a higher IOP (Figure 6).¹⁸

Incision Placement

Studies have shown that the main incision site is more clinically competent than is the side port incision site, as in our case study.¹⁹ Side-port incisions have a 1- or 2-plane architectural profile in contrast to the 3-plane profile typical of a main incision.¹⁹ Recent advances including the conversion to clear-corneal incisions of diminishing size, techniques used for wound construction, phacoemulsification machine design, and small-incision IOLs, should further reduce the prevalence and complications of wound compromise.²⁰

Seidel Testing

Seidel testing is the most common method to evaluate corneal wound integrity and identify leaks. A drop of topical anesthetic is instilled in the eye and then a fluorescein strip (not fluorescein sodium and benoxinate hydrochloride ophthalmic solution, which may become less sterile since it has a multiuse container) is applied to the superior conjunctiva. The clinician then looks for evidence of fluid egress using the cobalt blue filter. The patient is instructed to blink once. Fluid egress appears as a black stream as the fluorescein dye becomes diluted by aqueous humor escaping the nonintact wound and the appearance of bright green dye surrounds the leak site. The term Seidel positive indicates a leak. An estimate should be made of the rate and volume of fluid exiting the wound.

Gonioscopy

Gonioscopy can be used to evaluate the postsurgical incision, more specifically for identification and management of internal incision wound gape. On gonioscopy, internal wound gape appears as an elongated oval opening resembling a fish mouth. If internal incision wound gape is identified gonioscopically before surgery is complete, the leak can be managed intraoperatively. The surgeon can irrigate along the length of the incision to remove cortical fragments or viscoelastic that may cause internal wound gaping. If unsuccessful, rapidly deepening the anterior chamber with balanced salt solution through the paracentesis incision may be employed. These methods may improve wound stability, reduce risk of postoperative hyphema, lower the incidence of endophthalmitis, and lessen the likelihood of late against-the-rule drift.²¹

Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography

Instances when Seidel testing was negative despite actual wound gaping have been described.^22,23 Anterior segment OCT is useful to evaluate incision architecture. A 2007 United Kingdom study investigated the corneal architecture in the immediate postoperative period following phacoemulsification using anterior segment OCT. This study showed the benefits of identifying architectural features such as epithelial gaping, endothelial gaping, stripping of Descemet membrane, and loss of coaptation. These features were found to be more common at low IOP and could represent a significant risk factor for endophthalmitis.²⁴ Another study published by Behrens and colleagues indicated that a localized detachment of Descemet membrane may be more common than observed with slit-lamp (Figure 7). Corneal gaping, especially if along the entire length of the surgical wound, may lead to inadvertent bacterial access into the anterior chamber.²⁵ 

Anterior segment OCT imaging was first described by Izatt and colleagues in 1994.²⁶ Unlike posterior segment OCT, anterior segment OCT requires a greater depth of field and higher energy levels as images are commonly distorted by refraction at boundaries where the refractive index changes. Longer infrared wavelengths improve the penetration through tissues that scatter light, such as the sclera and limbus, which allows visualization, for example, of the iridocorneal angle.^27,28

Two main scan patterns are used for anterior segment OCT: 512 x 128 cube scan (4-mm width x 4-mm length) and 5-line raster (3-mm length) with adjustable rotation and spacing. A recent software update allows measurement of corneal thickness, visualization of anterior chamber angle structures along with topographic analysis, anterior and posterior elevation maps of the cornea, and reliable pachymetric maps.^29,30 The anterior segment cube acquires a series of 128 horizontal scan lines each composed of 512 A-scans. These high-definition scans acquire vertical and horizontal directions composed of 1024 A-scans each. This cube may be used to measure corneal thickness and visualize corneal architecture, creating a 3-D image of the data (Figure 8). The anterior segment 5-line raster scans through 5 parallel lines of equal length to view high-resolution images of the anterior chamber angle and cornea. Each line, fixed at 3-mm in length, is composed of 4096 A-scans.³¹ Anterior segment cube OCT allows identification of subtle variations in incision architecture at different locations across the width of the OCT image.

Bandage Soft Contact Lens

Upon reviewing the anterior segment OCT images of our patient with the bandage contact lens in place, it was evident that the adherent ocular bandage was protecting the incision. A tighter fitting bandage contact lens is ideal and adheres firmly to any area of epithelial damage and epithelial gaping to help seal the incision, protecting the wound and improving structural integrity. The bandage contact lens is gradually replaced by new cells via re-epithelialization; thus, it behaves as an adjunct to natural wound healing. A bandage contact lens also improves patient comfort.

It is hypothesized that a bandage contact lens improves the structural integrity of the incision site and helps prevent leaking, hypotony, and minor wound leaks. One study revealed a statistically significant lower IOP in nonbandage contact lens patients by an average of 6 mm Hg (mean [SD] 13.4 mm Hg [5.3]; range, 5 - 23 mm Hg) vs patients with a bandage contact lens (mean [SD] 19.4 mm Hg [5.9]; range, 11 - 29 mm Hg) in the immediate postoperative period.³² The authors suggested that the bandage contact lens may prevent microleaks, resulting in a higher IOP.

Aqueous Suppressants

Aqueous suppressants are a great option when IOP is abnormally elevated by decreasing the IOP and allowing the cornea to heal and self-seal.Effective aqueous suppressants are β blockers and carbonic anhydrase inhibitors.

After phacoemulsification ocular hypotony (< 6 mm Hg) occurs most commonly due to wound leakage or excessive intraocular inflammation. However, with the presence of corneal wound leakage and ocular hypotony, aqueous suppressants are not the best option.

Further Management of Wound Leaks

Management of a postoperative wound leak will vary based on severity. The majority of mild leaks are self-sealing. Anterior segment OCT helps the clinician to identify microleaks in an otherwise Seidel negative eye. If wound leakage is moderate with a formed anterior chamber, the use of a bandage contact lens is a good option, as can be the prescription of aqueous suppressants, depending on IOP.³³

If the anterior chamber is flat, iris prolapse is apparent, or extremely low IOP exists, the patient needs to be referred to the surgeon. Current standard of care directs the surgeon to use sutures to further manage corneal wound leak. However, several studies have recognized the increased risk of suture-related complications, such as induced astigmatism, corneal opacities, incomplete wound closure, and corneal neovascularization.^6,34-38 Other wound closure options include polyethylene glycol-based products, corneal welding, cyanoacrylate, or fibrin (Table 2).³⁹ Traditionally nylon sutures have been used for clear corneal incision wound closure. However, tissue adhesives are gaining popularity as a substitute for sutures in wound closure.⁴⁰

Cyanoacrylate

Numerous studies have been published on the efficacy of cyanoacrylate as a substitute for sutures, specifically in clear corneal incisions. AEs of cyanoacrylate include a transient foreign-body sensation and diffuse or focal bulbar conjunctival hyperemia.^41,42 Shigemitsu and Majima found that fibrin and cyanoacrylate glue had tensile strength similar to sutures when used in cataract surgery.39 
Polyethylene glycol-based products, also used in artificial tears and contact lens materials, may also help seal wound leaks. Another agent is ReSure (Ocular Therapeutix, Bedford, MA), an FDA-approved synthetic, polyethylene glycol hydrogel sealant that is 90% water after polymerization. ReSure has been shown to be safe and effective in sealing cataract surgical clear corneal incisions.^6,43 ReSure takes about 20 seconds to prepare, and placement is aided by the use of a blue dye that dissipates within hours. This hydrogel will gradually slough off in the tears once the tissue has fully regenerated; there is no need to remove the sealant.⁴⁴

Rossi and colleagues evaluated the efficacy of corneal welding to close wounds after cataract surgery. The technique involves laser-assisted closure of the corneal wound(s) by a diode laser that welds the stroma.⁴⁵ Corneal welding takes seconds to achieve good closure without significant astigmatism or inflammation; however very careful application of the light absorbing dyes is required as they are toxic if allowed to enter the anterior chamber.^45-47

Conclusion

Optometrists may be called to manage patients during both the preoperative and postoperative phases of cataract surgical care. Those who participate in postoperative care should carefully evaluate for the presence of wound leak or wound gape as a potential complication. The OCT may be employed to evaluate patients suspected of having these leaks or gapes. Proficiency in the interpretation of OCT results and more traditional evaluation methods allows for successful detection of wound leaks or gapes. The timely diagnosis and treatment of postoperative wound leaks allow for the best possible outcomes for cataract surgery patients.

THE CASE

A healthy 48-year-old man presented to our otolaryngology clinic with a 2-hour history of hearing loss, tinnitus, and fullness in the left ear. He denied any vertigo, nausea, vomiting, otalgia, or otorrhea. He had noticed signs of a possible upper respiratory infection, including a sore throat and headache, the day before his symptoms started. His medical history was unremarkable. He denied any history of otologic surgery, trauma, or vision problems, and he was not taking any medications.

The patient was afebrile on physical examination with a heart rate of 48 beats/min and blood pressure of 117/68 mm Hg. A Weber test performed using a 512-Hz tuning fork lateralized to the right ear. A Rinne test showed air conduction was louder than bone conduction in the affected left ear—a normal finding. Tympanometry and otoscopic examination showed the bilateral tympanic membranes were normal.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Pure tone audiometry showed severe sensorineural hearing loss in the left ear and a poor speech discrimination score. The Weber test confirmed the hearing loss was sensorineural and not conductive, ruling out a middle ear effusion. Additionally, the normal tympanogram made conductive hearing loss from a middle ear effusion or tympanic membrane perforation unlikely. The positive Rinne test was consistent with a diagnosis of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL).

DISCUSSION

SSNHL is defined by hearing loss of more than 30 dB in at least 3 consecutive frequencies with acute onset of less than 72 hours.^1,2 The most common symptoms include acute hearing loss, tinnitus, and fullness in the affected ear.¹ The majority of cases of SSNHL are unilateral. The typical age of onset is in the fourth and fifth decades, occurring with equal distribution in both sexes. The annual incidence of SSNHL is 5 to 20 cases per 100,000 individuals worldwide.^1,2

Etiology. Identifiable causes of SSNHL include viral infections, vascular events, cochlear hydrops, head trauma, tumors (eg, vestibular schwannoma), and demyelinating disorders. Bilateral SSNHL can be seen in autoimmune diseases and rarely can be caused by medications, such as aminoglycosides or certain chemotherapy medications. However, 90% of cases of SSNHL are considered idiopathic because the etiology cannot be determined.¹

The most common symptoms of sudden sensorineural hearing loss include not only acute hearing loss, but also tinnitus and fullness in the affected ear.

Diagnosis. The initial evaluation should include an otoscopic examination, tuning fork tests, and pure tone audiometry.^1-3 Weber and Rinne tests are essential when evaluating patients for unilateral hearing loss and determining the type of loss (ie, sensorineural vs conductive). The Weber test (ideally using a 512-Hz tuning fork) can detect either conductive or sensorineural hearing loss. In a normal Weber test, the patient should hear the vibration of the tuning fork equally in both ears. The tuning fork will be heard in both ears in conductive hearing loss but will only be heard in the unaffected hear if sensorineural hearing loss is present. So, for instance, if a patient has a perforation in the right tympanic membrane causing conductive hearing loss in the right hear, the tuning fork would be heard in both ears. If the patient has sensorineural hearing loss in the right ear, the tuning fork would only be heard in the left ear.

The Rinne test compares the perception of sound waves transmitted by air conduction vs bone conduction and serves as a rapid screen for conductive hearing loss. In a positive Rinne test, the patient should be able to hear the vibrating tuning fork next to the pinna louder than when placed against the mastoid bone (ie, air conduction greater than bone conduction). In a negative Rinne test, bone conduction is greater than air conduction, and a conductive hearing loss is present. In our patient, pure tone audiometry, tympanometry, and speech audiometry results were consistent with SSNHL.

Continue to: Magnetic resonance imaging...

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain and brainstem with gadolinium contrast can reveal vascular events (thrombotic or hemorrhagic), demyelinating disorders, or retrocochlear lesions such as vestibular schwannoma and is indicated in all cases of suspected SSNHL.^4,5An MRI should be obtained within 6 weeks of the initial presentation—even if the patient’s hearing returns to normal after treatment.⁴

Treatment and management. The current standard of care for treatment of idiopathic SSNHL is systemic steroids.^1,2 Although the gold standard currently is oral prednisolone or methylprednisolone (1 mg/kg/d for 10 to 14 days with a taper,^1,2 the evidence for this regimen stems from a single placebo-controlled trial (N = 67) that demonstrated greater improvement in the steroid group compared with the placebo group (61% vs 32%).⁶ A Cochrane review and other systematic analyses have not demonstrated clear efficacy of corticosteroid treatment for the management of idiopathic SSNHL.^7,8

Because of the potential systemic adverse effects associated with oral corticosteroids, intratympanic (IT) corticosteroids have been advocated as an alternative treatment option. A prospective, randomized, noninferiority trial comparing the efficacy of oral vs IT corticosteroids for idiopathic SSNHL found IT corticosteroids to be noninferior to systemic treatment.⁹ IT treatment also has been advocated as a rescue therapy for patients who do not respond to systemic treatment.¹⁰

A combination of oral and IT corticosteroids was investigated in a retrospective study analyzing multiple treatment modalities.¹⁰ Researchers first compared 122 patients receiving one of 3 treatments: (1) IT corticosteroids, (2) oral corticosteroids, and (3) combination treatment (IT + oral corticosteroids). There was no difference in hearing recovery among any of the treatments. Fifty-eight patients who were refractory to initial treatment were then included in a second analysis in which they were divided into those who received additional IT corticosteroids (salvage treatment) vs no treatment (control). There was no difference in hearing recovery between the 2 groups. The authors concluded that IT corticosteroids were as effective as oral treatment and that salvage IT treatment did not add any benefit.¹⁰

The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) recently published guidelines on the diagnosis and management of SSNHL.¹¹ The guidelines state that IT steroids should be considered in patients who cannot tolerate oral steroids, such as patients with diabetes. It is important to note, however, that the high cost of IT treatment (~$2000 for dexamethasone or methylprednisolone vs < $10 for oral prednisolone) is an issue that needs to be considered as health care costs continue to rise.

Continue to: Antivirals

Antivirals. Because an underlying viral etiology has been speculated as a potential cause of idiopathic SSNHL, antiviral agents such as valacyclovir or famciclovir also are potential treatment agents.¹² Antiviral medications have minimal adverse effects and are relatively inexpensive, but the benefits have not yet been proven in randomized controlled trials,and they currently are not endorsed by the AAO-HNS in their guidelines for the management of SSNHL.¹¹

Spontaneous recovery occurs in up to 40% of patients with idiopathic SSNHL. As many as 65% of those who experience recovery do so within 2 weeks of the onset of symptoms, regardless of treatment.^1,2 Treatment beyond 2 weeks after onset of symptoms is unlikely to be of any benefit, although some otolaryngologists will treat for up to 6 weeks after the onset of hearing loss.

A substantial number of patients with SSNHL may not recover. Management of these patients begins with referral to an appropriate specialist to initiate counseling and lifestyle changes. Depending on the degree of hearing loss, audiologic rehabilitation may include use of a traditional or bone-anchored hearing aid or a frequency-modulation system.^1,2,11 Tinnitus retraining therapy might be of benefit for patients with persistent tinnitus.¹¹

Our patient. After a discussion of his treatment options, our patient decided on a combination of oral prednisolone (60 mg once daily for 9 days followed by a taper for 5 days) and intratympanic dexamethasone injections (1 mL [10 mg/mL] once weekly for 3 weeks). Additionally, antiviral treatment with oral valacyclovir (2 g every 8 hours for 7 days) was initiated per the patient’s request (but is not currently recommended by AAO-HNS).

Ninety percent of sudden sensorineural hearing loss cases are considered idiopathic.

The rationale for this approach was the minimal adverse effects associated with short-term (ie, days to 1–2 weeks) use of high-dose (ie, > 30 mg/d) corticosteroids. Although steroid therapy has been associated with adverse effects such as aseptic necrosis of the hip, these complications usually arise after longer periods (ie, months to years) of high-dose steroid therapy with a mean cumulative dose much higher than what was used in our patient.¹³

Continue to: Our patient...

Our patient noticed slight improvement within 48 hours of the initial onset of symptoms that continued for the next several weeks until full recovery was attained. An MRI performed 5 days after the onset of symptoms was negative for retrocochlear pathology.

THE TAKEAWAY

SSNHL is a medical emergency that requires prompt recognition and diagnosis. The steps in evaluating sudden hearing loss include: (1) appropriate history and physical examination (eg, otoscopic examination, tuning fork tests), (2) urgent audiometry to confirm hearing loss, (3) immediate referral to an otolaryngologist for further testing (eg, tympanometry, blood tests, MRI), and (4) initiation of treatment.

If a specific etiology is identified (eg, vestibular schwannoma), the patient should be referred to a specialist for appropriate treatment. If there is no identifiable cause (idiopathic SSNHL), the patient should be treated with oral and/or intratympanic steroids. Patients who do not recover following treatment should be offered audiologic rehabilitation.

CORRESPONDENCE
Sergio Huerta, MD, UT Southwestern Medical Center, 4500 S Lancaster Road #112L, Dallas, TX 75216; [email protected]

THE CASE

A healthy 48-year-old man presented to our otolaryngology clinic with a 2-hour history of hearing loss, tinnitus, and fullness in the left ear. He denied any vertigo, nausea, vomiting, otalgia, or otorrhea. He had noticed signs of a possible upper respiratory infection, including a sore throat and headache, the day before his symptoms started. His medical history was unremarkable. He denied any history of otologic surgery, trauma, or vision problems, and he was not taking any medications.

The patient was afebrile on physical examination with a heart rate of 48 beats/min and blood pressure of 117/68 mm Hg. A Weber test performed using a 512-Hz tuning fork lateralized to the right ear. A Rinne test showed air conduction was louder than bone conduction in the affected left ear—a normal finding. Tympanometry and otoscopic examination showed the bilateral tympanic membranes were normal.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Pure tone audiometry showed severe sensorineural hearing loss in the left ear and a poor speech discrimination score. The Weber test confirmed the hearing loss was sensorineural and not conductive, ruling out a middle ear effusion. Additionally, the normal tympanogram made conductive hearing loss from a middle ear effusion or tympanic membrane perforation unlikely. The positive Rinne test was consistent with a diagnosis of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL).

DISCUSSION

SSNHL is defined by hearing loss of more than 30 dB in at least 3 consecutive frequencies with acute onset of less than 72 hours.^1,2 The most common symptoms include acute hearing loss, tinnitus, and fullness in the affected ear.¹ The majority of cases of SSNHL are unilateral. The typical age of onset is in the fourth and fifth decades, occurring with equal distribution in both sexes. The annual incidence of SSNHL is 5 to 20 cases per 100,000 individuals worldwide.^1,2

Etiology. Identifiable causes of SSNHL include viral infections, vascular events, cochlear hydrops, head trauma, tumors (eg, vestibular schwannoma), and demyelinating disorders. Bilateral SSNHL can be seen in autoimmune diseases and rarely can be caused by medications, such as aminoglycosides or certain chemotherapy medications. However, 90% of cases of SSNHL are considered idiopathic because the etiology cannot be determined.¹

The most common symptoms of sudden sensorineural hearing loss include not only acute hearing loss, but also tinnitus and fullness in the affected ear.

Diagnosis. The initial evaluation should include an otoscopic examination, tuning fork tests, and pure tone audiometry.^1-3 Weber and Rinne tests are essential when evaluating patients for unilateral hearing loss and determining the type of loss (ie, sensorineural vs conductive). The Weber test (ideally using a 512-Hz tuning fork) can detect either conductive or sensorineural hearing loss. In a normal Weber test, the patient should hear the vibration of the tuning fork equally in both ears. The tuning fork will be heard in both ears in conductive hearing loss but will only be heard in the unaffected hear if sensorineural hearing loss is present. So, for instance, if a patient has a perforation in the right tympanic membrane causing conductive hearing loss in the right hear, the tuning fork would be heard in both ears. If the patient has sensorineural hearing loss in the right ear, the tuning fork would only be heard in the left ear.

The Rinne test compares the perception of sound waves transmitted by air conduction vs bone conduction and serves as a rapid screen for conductive hearing loss. In a positive Rinne test, the patient should be able to hear the vibrating tuning fork next to the pinna louder than when placed against the mastoid bone (ie, air conduction greater than bone conduction). In a negative Rinne test, bone conduction is greater than air conduction, and a conductive hearing loss is present. In our patient, pure tone audiometry, tympanometry, and speech audiometry results were consistent with SSNHL.

Continue to: Magnetic resonance imaging...

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain and brainstem with gadolinium contrast can reveal vascular events (thrombotic or hemorrhagic), demyelinating disorders, or retrocochlear lesions such as vestibular schwannoma and is indicated in all cases of suspected SSNHL.^4,5An MRI should be obtained within 6 weeks of the initial presentation—even if the patient’s hearing returns to normal after treatment.⁴

Treatment and management. The current standard of care for treatment of idiopathic SSNHL is systemic steroids.^1,2 Although the gold standard currently is oral prednisolone or methylprednisolone (1 mg/kg/d for 10 to 14 days with a taper,^1,2 the evidence for this regimen stems from a single placebo-controlled trial (N = 67) that demonstrated greater improvement in the steroid group compared with the placebo group (61% vs 32%).⁶ A Cochrane review and other systematic analyses have not demonstrated clear efficacy of corticosteroid treatment for the management of idiopathic SSNHL.^7,8

Because of the potential systemic adverse effects associated with oral corticosteroids, intratympanic (IT) corticosteroids have been advocated as an alternative treatment option. A prospective, randomized, noninferiority trial comparing the efficacy of oral vs IT corticosteroids for idiopathic SSNHL found IT corticosteroids to be noninferior to systemic treatment.⁹ IT treatment also has been advocated as a rescue therapy for patients who do not respond to systemic treatment.¹⁰

A combination of oral and IT corticosteroids was investigated in a retrospective study analyzing multiple treatment modalities.¹⁰ Researchers first compared 122 patients receiving one of 3 treatments: (1) IT corticosteroids, (2) oral corticosteroids, and (3) combination treatment (IT + oral corticosteroids). There was no difference in hearing recovery among any of the treatments. Fifty-eight patients who were refractory to initial treatment were then included in a second analysis in which they were divided into those who received additional IT corticosteroids (salvage treatment) vs no treatment (control). There was no difference in hearing recovery between the 2 groups. The authors concluded that IT corticosteroids were as effective as oral treatment and that salvage IT treatment did not add any benefit.¹⁰

The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) recently published guidelines on the diagnosis and management of SSNHL.¹¹ The guidelines state that IT steroids should be considered in patients who cannot tolerate oral steroids, such as patients with diabetes. It is important to note, however, that the high cost of IT treatment (~$2000 for dexamethasone or methylprednisolone vs < $10 for oral prednisolone) is an issue that needs to be considered as health care costs continue to rise.

Continue to: Antivirals

Antivirals. Because an underlying viral etiology has been speculated as a potential cause of idiopathic SSNHL, antiviral agents such as valacyclovir or famciclovir also are potential treatment agents.¹² Antiviral medications have minimal adverse effects and are relatively inexpensive, but the benefits have not yet been proven in randomized controlled trials,and they currently are not endorsed by the AAO-HNS in their guidelines for the management of SSNHL.¹¹

Spontaneous recovery occurs in up to 40% of patients with idiopathic SSNHL. As many as 65% of those who experience recovery do so within 2 weeks of the onset of symptoms, regardless of treatment.^1,2 Treatment beyond 2 weeks after onset of symptoms is unlikely to be of any benefit, although some otolaryngologists will treat for up to 6 weeks after the onset of hearing loss.

A substantial number of patients with SSNHL may not recover. Management of these patients begins with referral to an appropriate specialist to initiate counseling and lifestyle changes. Depending on the degree of hearing loss, audiologic rehabilitation may include use of a traditional or bone-anchored hearing aid or a frequency-modulation system.^1,2,11 Tinnitus retraining therapy might be of benefit for patients with persistent tinnitus.¹¹

Our patient. After a discussion of his treatment options, our patient decided on a combination of oral prednisolone (60 mg once daily for 9 days followed by a taper for 5 days) and intratympanic dexamethasone injections (1 mL [10 mg/mL] once weekly for 3 weeks). Additionally, antiviral treatment with oral valacyclovir (2 g every 8 hours for 7 days) was initiated per the patient’s request (but is not currently recommended by AAO-HNS).

Ninety percent of sudden sensorineural hearing loss cases are considered idiopathic.

The rationale for this approach was the minimal adverse effects associated with short-term (ie, days to 1–2 weeks) use of high-dose (ie, > 30 mg/d) corticosteroids. Although steroid therapy has been associated with adverse effects such as aseptic necrosis of the hip, these complications usually arise after longer periods (ie, months to years) of high-dose steroid therapy with a mean cumulative dose much higher than what was used in our patient.¹³

Continue to: Our patient...

Our patient noticed slight improvement within 48 hours of the initial onset of symptoms that continued for the next several weeks until full recovery was attained. An MRI performed 5 days after the onset of symptoms was negative for retrocochlear pathology.

THE TAKEAWAY

SSNHL is a medical emergency that requires prompt recognition and diagnosis. The steps in evaluating sudden hearing loss include: (1) appropriate history and physical examination (eg, otoscopic examination, tuning fork tests), (2) urgent audiometry to confirm hearing loss, (3) immediate referral to an otolaryngologist for further testing (eg, tympanometry, blood tests, MRI), and (4) initiation of treatment.

If a specific etiology is identified (eg, vestibular schwannoma), the patient should be referred to a specialist for appropriate treatment. If there is no identifiable cause (idiopathic SSNHL), the patient should be treated with oral and/or intratympanic steroids. Patients who do not recover following treatment should be offered audiologic rehabilitation.

CORRESPONDENCE
Sergio Huerta, MD, UT Southwestern Medical Center, 4500 S Lancaster Road #112L, Dallas, TX 75216; [email protected]

THE CASE

A healthy 48-year-old man presented to our otolaryngology clinic with a 2-hour history of hearing loss, tinnitus, and fullness in the left ear. He denied any vertigo, nausea, vomiting, otalgia, or otorrhea. He had noticed signs of a possible upper respiratory infection, including a sore throat and headache, the day before his symptoms started. His medical history was unremarkable. He denied any history of otologic surgery, trauma, or vision problems, and he was not taking any medications.

The patient was afebrile on physical examination with a heart rate of 48 beats/min and blood pressure of 117/68 mm Hg. A Weber test performed using a 512-Hz tuning fork lateralized to the right ear. A Rinne test showed air conduction was louder than bone conduction in the affected left ear—a normal finding. Tympanometry and otoscopic examination showed the bilateral tympanic membranes were normal.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Pure tone audiometry showed severe sensorineural hearing loss in the left ear and a poor speech discrimination score. The Weber test confirmed the hearing loss was sensorineural and not conductive, ruling out a middle ear effusion. Additionally, the normal tympanogram made conductive hearing loss from a middle ear effusion or tympanic membrane perforation unlikely. The positive Rinne test was consistent with a diagnosis of idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL).

DISCUSSION

SSNHL is defined by hearing loss of more than 30 dB in at least 3 consecutive frequencies with acute onset of less than 72 hours.^1,2 The most common symptoms include acute hearing loss, tinnitus, and fullness in the affected ear.¹ The majority of cases of SSNHL are unilateral. The typical age of onset is in the fourth and fifth decades, occurring with equal distribution in both sexes. The annual incidence of SSNHL is 5 to 20 cases per 100,000 individuals worldwide.^1,2

Etiology. Identifiable causes of SSNHL include viral infections, vascular events, cochlear hydrops, head trauma, tumors (eg, vestibular schwannoma), and demyelinating disorders. Bilateral SSNHL can be seen in autoimmune diseases and rarely can be caused by medications, such as aminoglycosides or certain chemotherapy medications. However, 90% of cases of SSNHL are considered idiopathic because the etiology cannot be determined.¹

The most common symptoms of sudden sensorineural hearing loss include not only acute hearing loss, but also tinnitus and fullness in the affected ear.

Diagnosis. The initial evaluation should include an otoscopic examination, tuning fork tests, and pure tone audiometry.^1-3 Weber and Rinne tests are essential when evaluating patients for unilateral hearing loss and determining the type of loss (ie, sensorineural vs conductive). The Weber test (ideally using a 512-Hz tuning fork) can detect either conductive or sensorineural hearing loss. In a normal Weber test, the patient should hear the vibration of the tuning fork equally in both ears. The tuning fork will be heard in both ears in conductive hearing loss but will only be heard in the unaffected hear if sensorineural hearing loss is present. So, for instance, if a patient has a perforation in the right tympanic membrane causing conductive hearing loss in the right hear, the tuning fork would be heard in both ears. If the patient has sensorineural hearing loss in the right ear, the tuning fork would only be heard in the left ear.

The Rinne test compares the perception of sound waves transmitted by air conduction vs bone conduction and serves as a rapid screen for conductive hearing loss. In a positive Rinne test, the patient should be able to hear the vibrating tuning fork next to the pinna louder than when placed against the mastoid bone (ie, air conduction greater than bone conduction). In a negative Rinne test, bone conduction is greater than air conduction, and a conductive hearing loss is present. In our patient, pure tone audiometry, tympanometry, and speech audiometry results were consistent with SSNHL.

Continue to: Magnetic resonance imaging...

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain and brainstem with gadolinium contrast can reveal vascular events (thrombotic or hemorrhagic), demyelinating disorders, or retrocochlear lesions such as vestibular schwannoma and is indicated in all cases of suspected SSNHL.^4,5An MRI should be obtained within 6 weeks of the initial presentation—even if the patient’s hearing returns to normal after treatment.⁴

Treatment and management. The current standard of care for treatment of idiopathic SSNHL is systemic steroids.^1,2 Although the gold standard currently is oral prednisolone or methylprednisolone (1 mg/kg/d for 10 to 14 days with a taper,^1,2 the evidence for this regimen stems from a single placebo-controlled trial (N = 67) that demonstrated greater improvement in the steroid group compared with the placebo group (61% vs 32%).⁶ A Cochrane review and other systematic analyses have not demonstrated clear efficacy of corticosteroid treatment for the management of idiopathic SSNHL.^7,8

Because of the potential systemic adverse effects associated with oral corticosteroids, intratympanic (IT) corticosteroids have been advocated as an alternative treatment option. A prospective, randomized, noninferiority trial comparing the efficacy of oral vs IT corticosteroids for idiopathic SSNHL found IT corticosteroids to be noninferior to systemic treatment.⁹ IT treatment also has been advocated as a rescue therapy for patients who do not respond to systemic treatment.¹⁰

A combination of oral and IT corticosteroids was investigated in a retrospective study analyzing multiple treatment modalities.¹⁰ Researchers first compared 122 patients receiving one of 3 treatments: (1) IT corticosteroids, (2) oral corticosteroids, and (3) combination treatment (IT + oral corticosteroids). There was no difference in hearing recovery among any of the treatments. Fifty-eight patients who were refractory to initial treatment were then included in a second analysis in which they were divided into those who received additional IT corticosteroids (salvage treatment) vs no treatment (control). There was no difference in hearing recovery between the 2 groups. The authors concluded that IT corticosteroids were as effective as oral treatment and that salvage IT treatment did not add any benefit.¹⁰

The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) recently published guidelines on the diagnosis and management of SSNHL.¹¹ The guidelines state that IT steroids should be considered in patients who cannot tolerate oral steroids, such as patients with diabetes. It is important to note, however, that the high cost of IT treatment (~$2000 for dexamethasone or methylprednisolone vs < $10 for oral prednisolone) is an issue that needs to be considered as health care costs continue to rise.

Continue to: Antivirals

Antivirals. Because an underlying viral etiology has been speculated as a potential cause of idiopathic SSNHL, antiviral agents such as valacyclovir or famciclovir also are potential treatment agents.¹² Antiviral medications have minimal adverse effects and are relatively inexpensive, but the benefits have not yet been proven in randomized controlled trials,and they currently are not endorsed by the AAO-HNS in their guidelines for the management of SSNHL.¹¹

Spontaneous recovery occurs in up to 40% of patients with idiopathic SSNHL. As many as 65% of those who experience recovery do so within 2 weeks of the onset of symptoms, regardless of treatment.^1,2 Treatment beyond 2 weeks after onset of symptoms is unlikely to be of any benefit, although some otolaryngologists will treat for up to 6 weeks after the onset of hearing loss.

A substantial number of patients with SSNHL may not recover. Management of these patients begins with referral to an appropriate specialist to initiate counseling and lifestyle changes. Depending on the degree of hearing loss, audiologic rehabilitation may include use of a traditional or bone-anchored hearing aid or a frequency-modulation system.^1,2,11 Tinnitus retraining therapy might be of benefit for patients with persistent tinnitus.¹¹

Our patient. After a discussion of his treatment options, our patient decided on a combination of oral prednisolone (60 mg once daily for 9 days followed by a taper for 5 days) and intratympanic dexamethasone injections (1 mL [10 mg/mL] once weekly for 3 weeks). Additionally, antiviral treatment with oral valacyclovir (2 g every 8 hours for 7 days) was initiated per the patient’s request (but is not currently recommended by AAO-HNS).

Ninety percent of sudden sensorineural hearing loss cases are considered idiopathic.

The rationale for this approach was the minimal adverse effects associated with short-term (ie, days to 1–2 weeks) use of high-dose (ie, > 30 mg/d) corticosteroids. Although steroid therapy has been associated with adverse effects such as aseptic necrosis of the hip, these complications usually arise after longer periods (ie, months to years) of high-dose steroid therapy with a mean cumulative dose much higher than what was used in our patient.¹³

Continue to: Our patient...

Our patient noticed slight improvement within 48 hours of the initial onset of symptoms that continued for the next several weeks until full recovery was attained. An MRI performed 5 days after the onset of symptoms was negative for retrocochlear pathology.

THE TAKEAWAY

SSNHL is a medical emergency that requires prompt recognition and diagnosis. The steps in evaluating sudden hearing loss include: (1) appropriate history and physical examination (eg, otoscopic examination, tuning fork tests), (2) urgent audiometry to confirm hearing loss, (3) immediate referral to an otolaryngologist for further testing (eg, tympanometry, blood tests, MRI), and (4) initiation of treatment.

If a specific etiology is identified (eg, vestibular schwannoma), the patient should be referred to a specialist for appropriate treatment. If there is no identifiable cause (idiopathic SSNHL), the patient should be treated with oral and/or intratympanic steroids. Patients who do not recover following treatment should be offered audiologic rehabilitation.

CORRESPONDENCE
Sergio Huerta, MD, UT Southwestern Medical Center, 4500 S Lancaster Road #112L, Dallas, TX 75216; [email protected]

Case Report

A 32-year-old woman presented to the dermatology clinic with a tender lump overlying the right maxilla of 6 weeks’ duration. The lesion developed acutely 1 to 2 months after the patient began using an at-home microdermabrasion device, which she routinely cleaned with tap water. The physical examination was notable for a 1.5-cm, soft, superficially indurated plaque on the right cheek without associated lymphadenopathy (Figure).

A punch biopsy revealed underlying necrotic fat. Computed tomography of the neck showed 20-mm skin thickening overlying the right zygomatic arch, with minimal adjacent subcutaneous soft tissue stranding and reactive lymph nodes. Further histologic examination of the biopsy specimen revealed inflamed granulation tissue with granulomatous inflammation.

Acid-fast bacterial culture was positive. Subsequent speciation revealed the causal agent to be multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium abscessus. The patient was initially treated with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, which was switched to a combination of doxycycline and levofloxacin a few days later after initial culture returned. The following week, after the specific microorganism was confirmed with specific sensitivity, treatment was changed to intravenous (IV) tigecycline and amikacin. This regimen was continued for 2 more months through a peripherally inserted central catheter, then discontinued after complete resolution of the skin lesion.

Comment

Mycobacterial Infection
Nontuberculous mycobacteria were not identified as human pathogens until the 1950s. They are known to cause skin disease, lymphadenitis, skeletal infection, pulmonary disease, and disseminated infection, with pulmonary disease being the most common clinical form overall.¹Mycobacterium abscessus is a member of a more specific group known as rapidly growing nontuberculous mycobacteria, which also includes Mycobacterium fortuitum and Mycobacterium chelonae.² Commonly found in water, soil, and dust, M abscessus causes skin and soft tissue infection after skin injury by inoculation, minor trauma, or surgery.^2-4 An increased rate of infections recently has been attributed to an increase in cosmetic procedures such as tattooing, liposuction, mesotherapy, pedicures, and body piercing. Mycobacterial infections transmitted through acupuncture also have been documented.^5,6

Causes of Skin and Soft Tissue Infections
Skin and soft tissue infections due to rapidly growing mycobacteria often are associated with systemic comorbidities that cause immunosuppression and with immunosuppressive medications.⁷ Our patient did not have a preexisting comorbidity and did not take any long-term medication. When multiple lesions have been reported, patients were more likely to either have a systemic comorbidity or be taking immunosuppressive medication compared to patients with a single lesion. A history of penetrating trauma or an invasive surgical procedure has been reported more often in patients with a single lesion.⁷

Our patient had a solitary lesion on the face; improper sterile technique while using an at-home microdermabrasion device was thought to be the cause of infection. Although generally considered a minimally abrasive treatment modality, microdermabrasion caused enough trauma to create a nidus of infection in our patient.

Presentation
Cutaneous infection from rapidly growing mycobacteria can manifest as a nonhealing ulceration, subcutaneous abscess, draining sinus, or subcutaneous fluctuant or firm nodules. Erythema may be found in association with ulcers or chronic drainage from a surgical wound.^2,7

Histopathologic appearance varies, depending on the evolution of the disease and host immunologic status. Tuberculoid, palisading, and sarcoidlike granulomas; a diffuse infiltrate of histiocytic foamy cells; acute and chronic panniculitis; nonspecific chronic inflammation; cutaneous abscess; suppurative granuloma; and necrotizing folliculitis all can be seen.⁸ Immunosuppressed patients are less likely to form granulomas.⁶ Diagnosis often is delayed because acid-fast bacterial culture is not typically performed on skin biopsy specimens or surgical wound infections.⁷ Fortunately, a high index of suspicion in our patient’s case allowed for prompt diagnosis and expeditious management.

Management
Mycobacterium abscessus tends to be resistant to conventional antituberculous medications; overall, it is considered a highly drug-resistant pathogen that is difficult to treat.^9,10 Treatment usually requires 3 to 6 months of therapy, with oral clarithromycin considered the first-line agent for localized infection.⁵ Because cases of clarithromycin resistance have been reported in patients with M chelonae infection, caution is warranted when deciding between monotherapy or combination therapy.⁷ Multidrug resistance often necessitates prolonged IV therapy. Amikacin is the mostly commonly used IV agent for M abscessus infection. Adverse effects of treatment are common, often leading to a change in or discontinuation of therapy.¹¹

Our patient was initially given trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole before being switched to doxycycline and levofloxacin prior to final results of susceptibility testing. Ultimately, due to the multidrug-resistant nature of M abscessus, clarithromycin was not a viable option. Therefore, the patient was administered tigecycline and amikacin through a peripherally inserted central catheter until symptoms fully resolved.

Surgery can be an important adjunctive measure for certain patients, especially those with a single lesion.⁷ Our patient did well with medical treatment alone.

Conclusion

Given the difficulty of treating skin and soft tissue infections caused by M abscessus and related mycobacteria, it is worth noting that these infections are increasingly caused by procedures generally considered to be minimally invasive. Microdermabrasion—performed at home in an unsterile environment and not by a trained medical professional—was the causal procedure in this case. An important consideration is whether clinicians can be comfortable with the use of these treatments at home or whether they should be advising patients against at-home treatments that have potentially serious complications.

Case Report

A 32-year-old woman presented to the dermatology clinic with a tender lump overlying the right maxilla of 6 weeks’ duration. The lesion developed acutely 1 to 2 months after the patient began using an at-home microdermabrasion device, which she routinely cleaned with tap water. The physical examination was notable for a 1.5-cm, soft, superficially indurated plaque on the right cheek without associated lymphadenopathy (Figure).

A punch biopsy revealed underlying necrotic fat. Computed tomography of the neck showed 20-mm skin thickening overlying the right zygomatic arch, with minimal adjacent subcutaneous soft tissue stranding and reactive lymph nodes. Further histologic examination of the biopsy specimen revealed inflamed granulation tissue with granulomatous inflammation.

Acid-fast bacterial culture was positive. Subsequent speciation revealed the causal agent to be multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium abscessus. The patient was initially treated with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, which was switched to a combination of doxycycline and levofloxacin a few days later after initial culture returned. The following week, after the specific microorganism was confirmed with specific sensitivity, treatment was changed to intravenous (IV) tigecycline and amikacin. This regimen was continued for 2 more months through a peripherally inserted central catheter, then discontinued after complete resolution of the skin lesion.

Comment

Mycobacterial Infection
Nontuberculous mycobacteria were not identified as human pathogens until the 1950s. They are known to cause skin disease, lymphadenitis, skeletal infection, pulmonary disease, and disseminated infection, with pulmonary disease being the most common clinical form overall.¹Mycobacterium abscessus is a member of a more specific group known as rapidly growing nontuberculous mycobacteria, which also includes Mycobacterium fortuitum and Mycobacterium chelonae.² Commonly found in water, soil, and dust, M abscessus causes skin and soft tissue infection after skin injury by inoculation, minor trauma, or surgery.^2-4 An increased rate of infections recently has been attributed to an increase in cosmetic procedures such as tattooing, liposuction, mesotherapy, pedicures, and body piercing. Mycobacterial infections transmitted through acupuncture also have been documented.^5,6

Causes of Skin and Soft Tissue Infections
Skin and soft tissue infections due to rapidly growing mycobacteria often are associated with systemic comorbidities that cause immunosuppression and with immunosuppressive medications.⁷ Our patient did not have a preexisting comorbidity and did not take any long-term medication. When multiple lesions have been reported, patients were more likely to either have a systemic comorbidity or be taking immunosuppressive medication compared to patients with a single lesion. A history of penetrating trauma or an invasive surgical procedure has been reported more often in patients with a single lesion.⁷

Our patient had a solitary lesion on the face; improper sterile technique while using an at-home microdermabrasion device was thought to be the cause of infection. Although generally considered a minimally abrasive treatment modality, microdermabrasion caused enough trauma to create a nidus of infection in our patient.

Presentation
Cutaneous infection from rapidly growing mycobacteria can manifest as a nonhealing ulceration, subcutaneous abscess, draining sinus, or subcutaneous fluctuant or firm nodules. Erythema may be found in association with ulcers or chronic drainage from a surgical wound.^2,7

Histopathologic appearance varies, depending on the evolution of the disease and host immunologic status. Tuberculoid, palisading, and sarcoidlike granulomas; a diffuse infiltrate of histiocytic foamy cells; acute and chronic panniculitis; nonspecific chronic inflammation; cutaneous abscess; suppurative granuloma; and necrotizing folliculitis all can be seen.⁸ Immunosuppressed patients are less likely to form granulomas.⁶ Diagnosis often is delayed because acid-fast bacterial culture is not typically performed on skin biopsy specimens or surgical wound infections.⁷ Fortunately, a high index of suspicion in our patient’s case allowed for prompt diagnosis and expeditious management.

Management
Mycobacterium abscessus tends to be resistant to conventional antituberculous medications; overall, it is considered a highly drug-resistant pathogen that is difficult to treat.^9,10 Treatment usually requires 3 to 6 months of therapy, with oral clarithromycin considered the first-line agent for localized infection.⁵ Because cases of clarithromycin resistance have been reported in patients with M chelonae infection, caution is warranted when deciding between monotherapy or combination therapy.⁷ Multidrug resistance often necessitates prolonged IV therapy. Amikacin is the mostly commonly used IV agent for M abscessus infection. Adverse effects of treatment are common, often leading to a change in or discontinuation of therapy.¹¹

Our patient was initially given trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole before being switched to doxycycline and levofloxacin prior to final results of susceptibility testing. Ultimately, due to the multidrug-resistant nature of M abscessus, clarithromycin was not a viable option. Therefore, the patient was administered tigecycline and amikacin through a peripherally inserted central catheter until symptoms fully resolved.

Surgery can be an important adjunctive measure for certain patients, especially those with a single lesion.⁷ Our patient did well with medical treatment alone.

Conclusion

Given the difficulty of treating skin and soft tissue infections caused by M abscessus and related mycobacteria, it is worth noting that these infections are increasingly caused by procedures generally considered to be minimally invasive. Microdermabrasion—performed at home in an unsterile environment and not by a trained medical professional—was the causal procedure in this case. An important consideration is whether clinicians can be comfortable with the use of these treatments at home or whether they should be advising patients against at-home treatments that have potentially serious complications.

Case Report

A 32-year-old woman presented to the dermatology clinic with a tender lump overlying the right maxilla of 6 weeks’ duration. The lesion developed acutely 1 to 2 months after the patient began using an at-home microdermabrasion device, which she routinely cleaned with tap water. The physical examination was notable for a 1.5-cm, soft, superficially indurated plaque on the right cheek without associated lymphadenopathy (Figure).

A punch biopsy revealed underlying necrotic fat. Computed tomography of the neck showed 20-mm skin thickening overlying the right zygomatic arch, with minimal adjacent subcutaneous soft tissue stranding and reactive lymph nodes. Further histologic examination of the biopsy specimen revealed inflamed granulation tissue with granulomatous inflammation.

Acid-fast bacterial culture was positive. Subsequent speciation revealed the causal agent to be multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium abscessus. The patient was initially treated with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, which was switched to a combination of doxycycline and levofloxacin a few days later after initial culture returned. The following week, after the specific microorganism was confirmed with specific sensitivity, treatment was changed to intravenous (IV) tigecycline and amikacin. This regimen was continued for 2 more months through a peripherally inserted central catheter, then discontinued after complete resolution of the skin lesion.

Comment

Mycobacterial Infection
Nontuberculous mycobacteria were not identified as human pathogens until the 1950s. They are known to cause skin disease, lymphadenitis, skeletal infection, pulmonary disease, and disseminated infection, with pulmonary disease being the most common clinical form overall.¹Mycobacterium abscessus is a member of a more specific group known as rapidly growing nontuberculous mycobacteria, which also includes Mycobacterium fortuitum and Mycobacterium chelonae.² Commonly found in water, soil, and dust, M abscessus causes skin and soft tissue infection after skin injury by inoculation, minor trauma, or surgery.^2-4 An increased rate of infections recently has been attributed to an increase in cosmetic procedures such as tattooing, liposuction, mesotherapy, pedicures, and body piercing. Mycobacterial infections transmitted through acupuncture also have been documented.^5,6

Causes of Skin and Soft Tissue Infections
Skin and soft tissue infections due to rapidly growing mycobacteria often are associated with systemic comorbidities that cause immunosuppression and with immunosuppressive medications.⁷ Our patient did not have a preexisting comorbidity and did not take any long-term medication. When multiple lesions have been reported, patients were more likely to either have a systemic comorbidity or be taking immunosuppressive medication compared to patients with a single lesion. A history of penetrating trauma or an invasive surgical procedure has been reported more often in patients with a single lesion.⁷

Our patient had a solitary lesion on the face; improper sterile technique while using an at-home microdermabrasion device was thought to be the cause of infection. Although generally considered a minimally abrasive treatment modality, microdermabrasion caused enough trauma to create a nidus of infection in our patient.

Presentation
Cutaneous infection from rapidly growing mycobacteria can manifest as a nonhealing ulceration, subcutaneous abscess, draining sinus, or subcutaneous fluctuant or firm nodules. Erythema may be found in association with ulcers or chronic drainage from a surgical wound.^2,7

Histopathologic appearance varies, depending on the evolution of the disease and host immunologic status. Tuberculoid, palisading, and sarcoidlike granulomas; a diffuse infiltrate of histiocytic foamy cells; acute and chronic panniculitis; nonspecific chronic inflammation; cutaneous abscess; suppurative granuloma; and necrotizing folliculitis all can be seen.⁸ Immunosuppressed patients are less likely to form granulomas.⁶ Diagnosis often is delayed because acid-fast bacterial culture is not typically performed on skin biopsy specimens or surgical wound infections.⁷ Fortunately, a high index of suspicion in our patient’s case allowed for prompt diagnosis and expeditious management.

Management
Mycobacterium abscessus tends to be resistant to conventional antituberculous medications; overall, it is considered a highly drug-resistant pathogen that is difficult to treat.^9,10 Treatment usually requires 3 to 6 months of therapy, with oral clarithromycin considered the first-line agent for localized infection.⁵ Because cases of clarithromycin resistance have been reported in patients with M chelonae infection, caution is warranted when deciding between monotherapy or combination therapy.⁷ Multidrug resistance often necessitates prolonged IV therapy. Amikacin is the mostly commonly used IV agent for M abscessus infection. Adverse effects of treatment are common, often leading to a change in or discontinuation of therapy.¹¹

Our patient was initially given trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole before being switched to doxycycline and levofloxacin prior to final results of susceptibility testing. Ultimately, due to the multidrug-resistant nature of M abscessus, clarithromycin was not a viable option. Therefore, the patient was administered tigecycline and amikacin through a peripherally inserted central catheter until symptoms fully resolved.

Surgery can be an important adjunctive measure for certain patients, especially those with a single lesion.⁷ Our patient did well with medical treatment alone.

Conclusion

Given the difficulty of treating skin and soft tissue infections caused by M abscessus and related mycobacteria, it is worth noting that these infections are increasingly caused by procedures generally considered to be minimally invasive. Microdermabrasion—performed at home in an unsterile environment and not by a trained medical professional—was the causal procedure in this case. An important consideration is whether clinicians can be comfortable with the use of these treatments at home or whether they should be advising patients against at-home treatments that have potentially serious complications.

Gout is an in inflammatory condition that is generally characterized by red, hot, swollen, and painful joints. The disease is often associated with increased serum uric acid levels; which are considered elevated when they are > 6 mg/dL in women and > 7 mg/dL in men. When gout affects joints, the subchondral bone may be involved, leading to destructive, painful changes. This article presents the case of a patient diagnosed with tophaceous gout of the left second toe with bony erosive changes and calcified nodules noted on magnetic resonance images (MRI).

Case Presentation

A 70-year-old white male presented to the podiatry clinic for a left second-toe mass that was diagnosed as tophaceous gout after being seen by his primary care physician. The patient reported that the mass had slowly grown over the past 10 years. At presentation, he had a 0.2-cm ulcer on the dorsal aspect of the left second-toe mass. The patient stated that the ulcer had recently appeared with some exudate; however, there was no active drainage of material. The patient had a 20-year history of gout that was untreated with dietary modifications or medication. The patient also stated that although the left second-toe mass did not cause any pain on rest, it did cause pain with shoe gear and during ambulation. A community-based podiatrist had recommended amputation of the second toe and as a result the patient was seeking a second opinion at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Lebanon VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Pennsylvania. The patient had not had acute gouty attacks during the past 10 years.

The patient’s medical history was significant for uncontrolled gout, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease with a 4-vessel coronary artery bypass grafting, impaired fasting glucose, prostate cancer that was in remission, alcohol misuse (currently limited to ≤ 2 drinks per night), and 30-year history of cigarette smoking (quit 2 months prior to visit).^1,2

At his first visit to the clinic, an examination revealed distinct evidence of bulging of the soft tissues of the second toe of the left foot with a dry sinus tract that was not malodorous (Figure 1). The left second toe was erythematous and edematous. A local increase in skin temperature was present on the second toe of the left foot compared with that of the contralateral foot and other toes. The dorsalis pedis and tibialis posterior pulses were easily palpated, and the capillary return was within normal limits. Palpation of the left second-toe plantar elicited mild tenderness. Crepitation was not present at the left second metatarsophalangeal joint (MPJ) nor at the interphalangeal joint. There was restricted range of motion at the left second MPJ compared with that of the right foot and no motion at the proximal interphalangeal joint. The movement at the left second metatarsophalangeal elicited tenderness. The mass on the left second toe was firm, nonpulsatile, oval-shaped, with a white pigmented consistency that measured 2 cm x 2.5 cm.

There were no deficits present on the neurologic examination, which was noncontributory. There also was no gross evidence of motor weakness. His initial temporal temperature was 98.2° F. The initial laboratory findings were uric acid, 9.5 mg/dL; fasting glucose, 117 g/dL; estimated glomerular filtration rate, 55 mL/min/1.73 m²; erythrocyte sedimentation rate, 6.5 mm/h; and white blood count, 6.6 K/uL.^3,4-6

Diagnostic imaging included X-rays of the patient’s feet and a MRI of the left foot. The X-rays showed diffusely osteopenic bones with severe soft tissue swelling surrounding the second proximal interphalangeal joint. Also present was moderate soft tissue swelling at the level of the first metatarsophalangeal joint accompanied by extensive erosions at both of these joints, most pronounced at the second proximal interphalangeal joint. Also, there was narrowing at the first MPJ and the first interphalangeal joint. Erosive changes at the tarsometatarsal articulations and small lucencies within the navicular/midfoot joint were suggestive of additional gouty erosions. A small-to-moderate posterior calcaneal enthesophyte was present as well as a tiny calcaneal enthesophyte (Figure 2).

A MRI showed a destructive soft tissue mass, resulting in overhanging edges, with foci of calcifications centered about the proximal interphalangeal joint of the second toe, which is consistent with a calcified tophaceous gout nodule. The widest dimension of the mass measured 3.2 cm. There also was a less prominent calcified tophaceous gout nodule at the first MPJ. There were additional small punched-out lesions involving the bases of the first through fourth metatarsi and at the distal aspect of the first cuneiform in keeping with gouty arthropathy (Figure 3).^4,7-10

The initial treatment plan presented to the patient was to amputate the left second toe. But the patient decided against amputation. Treatment guidelines for allopurinol are to titrate in 100-mg increments every 2 weeks until the serum uric acid levels are consistently < 6, tophi resolve, and the patient should be free of gout attacks.¹¹ We initiated uric acid-lowering therapy with allopurinol at 50 mg/d for 7 days, increasing to 100 mg/d for 7 days, then to 200 mg/d for 10 days. The patient’s serum uric acid level was checked at 200 mg/d. Our patient could not tolerate the allopurinol and decided to discontinue treatment. After 1 year he started having severe pain and returned to have the toe amputated. The patient healed uneventfully.

Discussion

Tophaceous gout is characterized by collections of solid urate accompanied by chronic inflammatory and often destructive changes in the surrounding tissue brought on by periods of increased uric acid levels. Due to the patient’s 20-year history of untreated tophaceous gout, we saw the extent of bony and soft tissue destruction that this pathology created. This patient’s uric acid laboratory value of 9.5 mg/dL was well above the normal reference values of 2.6 to 7.2 mg/dL. The X-rays performed suggested that there was not only bony destruction, but also deformity.

The destruction to the surrounding soft tissues noted as advanced nonhealing wounds formed to the area of the tophi. The size of the second digit also was impressive, causing displacement of the other digits. As stated in the literature, tophaceous gout is usually painless as was the case in our patient. It is the combination of the relatively painless nature of this pathology accompanied by no treatment over many years that led to the patient’s level of deformity and tissue destruction.

Conclusion

We describe a common presentation of bone involvement secondary to significant tophaceous gout in the absence osteomyelitis. The goal of treatment was to maintain a functional foot free of major deformity, pain, or associated risk factors that could lead to a more significant surgical procedure, such as a proximal amputation.¹¹ Given the destructive nature of this pathology, it is important to educate the patient, perform regular examinations, and start medications early to control uric acid levels. These measures will improve the patient’s prognosis and avoid severe sequelae.

Gout is an in inflammatory condition that is generally characterized by red, hot, swollen, and painful joints. The disease is often associated with increased serum uric acid levels; which are considered elevated when they are > 6 mg/dL in women and > 7 mg/dL in men. When gout affects joints, the subchondral bone may be involved, leading to destructive, painful changes. This article presents the case of a patient diagnosed with tophaceous gout of the left second toe with bony erosive changes and calcified nodules noted on magnetic resonance images (MRI).

Case Presentation

A 70-year-old white male presented to the podiatry clinic for a left second-toe mass that was diagnosed as tophaceous gout after being seen by his primary care physician. The patient reported that the mass had slowly grown over the past 10 years. At presentation, he had a 0.2-cm ulcer on the dorsal aspect of the left second-toe mass. The patient stated that the ulcer had recently appeared with some exudate; however, there was no active drainage of material. The patient had a 20-year history of gout that was untreated with dietary modifications or medication. The patient also stated that although the left second-toe mass did not cause any pain on rest, it did cause pain with shoe gear and during ambulation. A community-based podiatrist had recommended amputation of the second toe and as a result the patient was seeking a second opinion at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Lebanon VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Pennsylvania. The patient had not had acute gouty attacks during the past 10 years.

The patient’s medical history was significant for uncontrolled gout, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease with a 4-vessel coronary artery bypass grafting, impaired fasting glucose, prostate cancer that was in remission, alcohol misuse (currently limited to ≤ 2 drinks per night), and 30-year history of cigarette smoking (quit 2 months prior to visit).^1,2

At his first visit to the clinic, an examination revealed distinct evidence of bulging of the soft tissues of the second toe of the left foot with a dry sinus tract that was not malodorous (Figure 1). The left second toe was erythematous and edematous. A local increase in skin temperature was present on the second toe of the left foot compared with that of the contralateral foot and other toes. The dorsalis pedis and tibialis posterior pulses were easily palpated, and the capillary return was within normal limits. Palpation of the left second-toe plantar elicited mild tenderness. Crepitation was not present at the left second metatarsophalangeal joint (MPJ) nor at the interphalangeal joint. There was restricted range of motion at the left second MPJ compared with that of the right foot and no motion at the proximal interphalangeal joint. The movement at the left second metatarsophalangeal elicited tenderness. The mass on the left second toe was firm, nonpulsatile, oval-shaped, with a white pigmented consistency that measured 2 cm x 2.5 cm.

There were no deficits present on the neurologic examination, which was noncontributory. There also was no gross evidence of motor weakness. His initial temporal temperature was 98.2° F. The initial laboratory findings were uric acid, 9.5 mg/dL; fasting glucose, 117 g/dL; estimated glomerular filtration rate, 55 mL/min/1.73 m²; erythrocyte sedimentation rate, 6.5 mm/h; and white blood count, 6.6 K/uL.^3,4-6

Diagnostic imaging included X-rays of the patient’s feet and a MRI of the left foot. The X-rays showed diffusely osteopenic bones with severe soft tissue swelling surrounding the second proximal interphalangeal joint. Also present was moderate soft tissue swelling at the level of the first metatarsophalangeal joint accompanied by extensive erosions at both of these joints, most pronounced at the second proximal interphalangeal joint. Also, there was narrowing at the first MPJ and the first interphalangeal joint. Erosive changes at the tarsometatarsal articulations and small lucencies within the navicular/midfoot joint were suggestive of additional gouty erosions. A small-to-moderate posterior calcaneal enthesophyte was present as well as a tiny calcaneal enthesophyte (Figure 2).

A MRI showed a destructive soft tissue mass, resulting in overhanging edges, with foci of calcifications centered about the proximal interphalangeal joint of the second toe, which is consistent with a calcified tophaceous gout nodule. The widest dimension of the mass measured 3.2 cm. There also was a less prominent calcified tophaceous gout nodule at the first MPJ. There were additional small punched-out lesions involving the bases of the first through fourth metatarsi and at the distal aspect of the first cuneiform in keeping with gouty arthropathy (Figure 3).^4,7-10

The initial treatment plan presented to the patient was to amputate the left second toe. But the patient decided against amputation. Treatment guidelines for allopurinol are to titrate in 100-mg increments every 2 weeks until the serum uric acid levels are consistently < 6, tophi resolve, and the patient should be free of gout attacks.¹¹ We initiated uric acid-lowering therapy with allopurinol at 50 mg/d for 7 days, increasing to 100 mg/d for 7 days, then to 200 mg/d for 10 days. The patient’s serum uric acid level was checked at 200 mg/d. Our patient could not tolerate the allopurinol and decided to discontinue treatment. After 1 year he started having severe pain and returned to have the toe amputated. The patient healed uneventfully.

Discussion

Tophaceous gout is characterized by collections of solid urate accompanied by chronic inflammatory and often destructive changes in the surrounding tissue brought on by periods of increased uric acid levels. Due to the patient’s 20-year history of untreated tophaceous gout, we saw the extent of bony and soft tissue destruction that this pathology created. This patient’s uric acid laboratory value of 9.5 mg/dL was well above the normal reference values of 2.6 to 7.2 mg/dL. The X-rays performed suggested that there was not only bony destruction, but also deformity.

The destruction to the surrounding soft tissues noted as advanced nonhealing wounds formed to the area of the tophi. The size of the second digit also was impressive, causing displacement of the other digits. As stated in the literature, tophaceous gout is usually painless as was the case in our patient. It is the combination of the relatively painless nature of this pathology accompanied by no treatment over many years that led to the patient’s level of deformity and tissue destruction.

Conclusion

We describe a common presentation of bone involvement secondary to significant tophaceous gout in the absence osteomyelitis. The goal of treatment was to maintain a functional foot free of major deformity, pain, or associated risk factors that could lead to a more significant surgical procedure, such as a proximal amputation.¹¹ Given the destructive nature of this pathology, it is important to educate the patient, perform regular examinations, and start medications early to control uric acid levels. These measures will improve the patient’s prognosis and avoid severe sequelae.

Gout is an in inflammatory condition that is generally characterized by red, hot, swollen, and painful joints. The disease is often associated with increased serum uric acid levels; which are considered elevated when they are > 6 mg/dL in women and > 7 mg/dL in men. When gout affects joints, the subchondral bone may be involved, leading to destructive, painful changes. This article presents the case of a patient diagnosed with tophaceous gout of the left second toe with bony erosive changes and calcified nodules noted on magnetic resonance images (MRI).

Case Presentation

A 70-year-old white male presented to the podiatry clinic for a left second-toe mass that was diagnosed as tophaceous gout after being seen by his primary care physician. The patient reported that the mass had slowly grown over the past 10 years. At presentation, he had a 0.2-cm ulcer on the dorsal aspect of the left second-toe mass. The patient stated that the ulcer had recently appeared with some exudate; however, there was no active drainage of material. The patient had a 20-year history of gout that was untreated with dietary modifications or medication. The patient also stated that although the left second-toe mass did not cause any pain on rest, it did cause pain with shoe gear and during ambulation. A community-based podiatrist had recommended amputation of the second toe and as a result the patient was seeking a second opinion at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Lebanon VA Medical Center (VAMC) in Pennsylvania. The patient had not had acute gouty attacks during the past 10 years.

The patient’s medical history was significant for uncontrolled gout, hyperlipidemia, coronary artery disease with a 4-vessel coronary artery bypass grafting, impaired fasting glucose, prostate cancer that was in remission, alcohol misuse (currently limited to ≤ 2 drinks per night), and 30-year history of cigarette smoking (quit 2 months prior to visit).^1,2

At his first visit to the clinic, an examination revealed distinct evidence of bulging of the soft tissues of the second toe of the left foot with a dry sinus tract that was not malodorous (Figure 1). The left second toe was erythematous and edematous. A local increase in skin temperature was present on the second toe of the left foot compared with that of the contralateral foot and other toes. The dorsalis pedis and tibialis posterior pulses were easily palpated, and the capillary return was within normal limits. Palpation of the left second-toe plantar elicited mild tenderness. Crepitation was not present at the left second metatarsophalangeal joint (MPJ) nor at the interphalangeal joint. There was restricted range of motion at the left second MPJ compared with that of the right foot and no motion at the proximal interphalangeal joint. The movement at the left second metatarsophalangeal elicited tenderness. The mass on the left second toe was firm, nonpulsatile, oval-shaped, with a white pigmented consistency that measured 2 cm x 2.5 cm.

There were no deficits present on the neurologic examination, which was noncontributory. There also was no gross evidence of motor weakness. His initial temporal temperature was 98.2° F. The initial laboratory findings were uric acid, 9.5 mg/dL; fasting glucose, 117 g/dL; estimated glomerular filtration rate, 55 mL/min/1.73 m²; erythrocyte sedimentation rate, 6.5 mm/h; and white blood count, 6.6 K/uL.^3,4-6

Diagnostic imaging included X-rays of the patient’s feet and a MRI of the left foot. The X-rays showed diffusely osteopenic bones with severe soft tissue swelling surrounding the second proximal interphalangeal joint. Also present was moderate soft tissue swelling at the level of the first metatarsophalangeal joint accompanied by extensive erosions at both of these joints, most pronounced at the second proximal interphalangeal joint. Also, there was narrowing at the first MPJ and the first interphalangeal joint. Erosive changes at the tarsometatarsal articulations and small lucencies within the navicular/midfoot joint were suggestive of additional gouty erosions. A small-to-moderate posterior calcaneal enthesophyte was present as well as a tiny calcaneal enthesophyte (Figure 2).

A MRI showed a destructive soft tissue mass, resulting in overhanging edges, with foci of calcifications centered about the proximal interphalangeal joint of the second toe, which is consistent with a calcified tophaceous gout nodule. The widest dimension of the mass measured 3.2 cm. There also was a less prominent calcified tophaceous gout nodule at the first MPJ. There were additional small punched-out lesions involving the bases of the first through fourth metatarsi and at the distal aspect of the first cuneiform in keeping with gouty arthropathy (Figure 3).^4,7-10

The initial treatment plan presented to the patient was to amputate the left second toe. But the patient decided against amputation. Treatment guidelines for allopurinol are to titrate in 100-mg increments every 2 weeks until the serum uric acid levels are consistently < 6, tophi resolve, and the patient should be free of gout attacks.¹¹ We initiated uric acid-lowering therapy with allopurinol at 50 mg/d for 7 days, increasing to 100 mg/d for 7 days, then to 200 mg/d for 10 days. The patient’s serum uric acid level was checked at 200 mg/d. Our patient could not tolerate the allopurinol and decided to discontinue treatment. After 1 year he started having severe pain and returned to have the toe amputated. The patient healed uneventfully.

Discussion

Tophaceous gout is characterized by collections of solid urate accompanied by chronic inflammatory and often destructive changes in the surrounding tissue brought on by periods of increased uric acid levels. Due to the patient’s 20-year history of untreated tophaceous gout, we saw the extent of bony and soft tissue destruction that this pathology created. This patient’s uric acid laboratory value of 9.5 mg/dL was well above the normal reference values of 2.6 to 7.2 mg/dL. The X-rays performed suggested that there was not only bony destruction, but also deformity.

The destruction to the surrounding soft tissues noted as advanced nonhealing wounds formed to the area of the tophi. The size of the second digit also was impressive, causing displacement of the other digits. As stated in the literature, tophaceous gout is usually painless as was the case in our patient. It is the combination of the relatively painless nature of this pathology accompanied by no treatment over many years that led to the patient’s level of deformity and tissue destruction.

Conclusion

We describe a common presentation of bone involvement secondary to significant tophaceous gout in the absence osteomyelitis. The goal of treatment was to maintain a functional foot free of major deformity, pain, or associated risk factors that could lead to a more significant surgical procedure, such as a proximal amputation.¹¹ Given the destructive nature of this pathology, it is important to educate the patient, perform regular examinations, and start medications early to control uric acid levels. These measures will improve the patient’s prognosis and avoid severe sequelae.

Patients benefit from multidisciplinary care that coordinates management of complex medical problems. Traditionally, multidisciplinary cancer care involves oncology specialty providers in fields that include medical oncology, radiation oncology, and surgical oncology. Multidisciplinary cancer care intends to improve patient outcomes by bringing together different health care providers (HCPs) who are involved in the treatment of patients with cancer. Because new therapies are more effective and allow patients with cancer to live longer, adverse effects (AEs) are more likely to impact patients’ well-being, both while receiving treatment and long after it has completed. Thus, this population may benefit from an expanded approach to multidisciplinary care that includes input from specialty and primary care providers (PCPs), clinical pharmacy specialists (CPS), physical and occupational therapists, and patient navigators and educators.

We present 4 hypothetical cases, based on actual patients, that illustrate opportunities where multidisciplinary care coordination may improve patient experiences. These cases draw on current quality initiatives from the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program, which has focused on improving the quality of multidisciplinary cancer care at selected community centers, and the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patient-aligned care team (PACT) model, which brings together different health professionals to optimize primary care coordination.^1,2 In addition, the National Committee for Quality Assurance has introduced an educational initiative to facilitate implementation of an oncologic medical home.³ This initiative stresses increased multidisciplinary communication, patient-centered care delivery, and reduced fragmentation of care for this population. Despite these guidelines and experiences from other medical specialties, models for integrated cancer care have not been implemented in a prospective fashion within the VHA.

In this article, we focus on opportunities to take collaborative care approaches for the treatment of patients with follicular lymphoma (FL): a common, incurable, and often indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma.⁴ FL was selected because these patients may be treated numerous times and long-term sequalae can accumulate throughout their cancer continuum (a series of health events encompassing cancer screening, diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, relapse, and death).⁵ HCPs in distinct roles can assist patients with cancer in optimizing their health outcomes and overall wellbeing.⁶

Case Example 1

A 70-year-old male was diagnosed with stage IV FL. Because of his advanced disease, he began therapy with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone). Prednisone was administered at 100 mg daily on the first 5 days of each 21-day cycle. On day 4 of the first treatment cycle, the patient notified his oncologist that he had been very thirsty and his random blood sugar values on 2 different days were 283 mg/dL and 312 mg/dL. A laboratory review revealed his hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) 7 months prior was 5.6%.

Discussion

The high-dose prednisone component of this and other lymphoma therapy regimens can worsen diabetes mellitus (DM) control and/or worsen prediabetes. Patient characteristics that increase the risk of developing glucocorticoid-induced DM after CHOP chemotherapy include age ≥ 60 years, HbA_1c > 6.1%, and body mass index > 30.⁷ This patient did not have DM prior to the FL therapy initiation, but afterwards he met diagnostic criteria for DM. For completeness, other causes for elevated blood glucose should be ruled out (ie, infection, laboratory error, etc.). An oncologist often will triage acute hyperglycemia, treating immediately with IV fluids and/or insulin. Thereafter, ongoing chronic disease management for DM may be best managed by PCPs, certified DM educators, and registered dieticians.

Several programs involving multidisciplinary DM care, comprised of physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, certified DM educators, and/or pharmacists have been shown to improve HbA_1c, cardiovascular outcomes, and all-cause mortality, while reducing health care costs.⁸ In addition, patient navigators can assist patients with coordinating visits to disease-state specialists and identifying further educational needs. For example, in 1 program, nonclinical peer navigators were shown to improve the number of appointments attended and reduce HbA_1c in a population of patients with DM who were primarily minority, urban, and of low socioeconomic status.⁹ Thus, integrating DM care shows potential to improve outcomes for patients with lymphoma who develop glucocorticoid-induced DM.

Case Example 2

A 75-year-old male was diagnosed with FL. He was treated initially with bendamustine and rituximab. He required reinitiation of therapy 20 months later when he developed lymphadenopathy, fatigue, and night sweats and began treatment with oral idelalisib, a second-line therapy. Later, the patient presented to his PCP for a routine visit, and on medication reconciliation review, the patient reported regular use of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.

Discussion

Upon consultation with the CPS and the patient’s oncologist, the PCP confirmed trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole should be continued during therapy and for about 6 months following completion of therapy. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole is used for prophylaxis against Pneumocystis jirovecii (formerly Pneumocystis carinii). While use of prophylactic therapy is not necessary for all patients with FL, idelalisib impairs the function of circulating lymphoid B-cells and thus has been associated with an increased risk of serious infection.¹⁰ A CPS can provide insight that maximizes medication adherence and efficacy while minimizing food-drug, drug-drug interactions, and AEs. CPS have been shown to: improve adherence to oral therapies, increase prospective monitoring required for safe therapy dose selection, and document assessment of chemotherapy-related AEs.^11,12 Thus, multidisciplinary, integrated care is an important component of providing quality oncology care.

Case Example 3

A 60-year-old female presented to her PCP with a 2-week history of shortness of breath and leg swelling. She was treated for FL 4 years previously with 6 cycles of R-CHOP. She reported no chest pain and did not have a prior history of hypertension, DM, or heart disease. On physical exam, she had elevated jugular venous pressure to jaw at 45°, bilateral pulmonary rales, and 2+ pitting pretibial edema. Laboratory tests that included complete blood count, basic chemistries, and thyroid stimulating hormone were unremarkable, though brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) was elevated at 425 pg/mL.

As this patient’s laboratory results and physical examination suggested new-onset congestive heart failure, the PCP obtained an echocardiogram, which demonstrated an ejection fraction of 35% and global hypokinesis. Because the patient was symptomatic, she was admitted to the hospital to begin guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) including IV diuresis.

Discussion

Given the absence of significant risk factors and prior history of coronary artery disease, the most probable cause for this patient’s cardiomyopathy is doxorubicin. Doxorubicin is an anthracycline chemotherapy that can cause nonischemic, dilated cardiomyopathy, particularly when cumulative doses > 400 mg/m² are administered, or when combined with chest radiation.¹³ This patient benefited from GDMT for reduced ejection-fraction heart failure (HFrEF). Studies have demonstrated positive outcomes when HFrEF patients are cared for by a multidisciplinary team who focus of volume management as well as uptitration of therapies to target doses.¹⁴

Case Example 4

An 80-year-old female was diagnosed with stage III FL but did not require immediate therapy. After developing discomfort due to enlarging lymphadenopathy, she initiated therapy with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CVP). She presented to her oncologist for consideration of her fifth cycle of R-CVP and reported a burning sensation on the soles of her feet and numbness in her fingertips and toes. On examination, her pulses were intact and there were no signs of infection, reduced blood flow, or edema. The patient demonstrated decreased sensation on monofilament testing. She had no history of DM and a recent HbA_1c test was 4.9% An evaluation for other causes of neuropathy, such as hypothyroidism and vitamin B₁₂ deficiency was negative. Thus, vincristine therapy was identified as the most likely etiology for her peripheral neuropathy. The oncologist decided to proceed with cycle 5 of chemotherapy but reduced the dose of vincristine by 50%.

Discussion

Vincristine is a microtubule inhibitor used in many chemotherapy regimens and may cause reversible or permanent neuropathy, including autonomic (constipation), sensory (stocking-glove distribution), or motor (foot-drop).¹⁵ A nerve conduction study may be indicated as part of the diagnostic evaluation. Treatment for painful sensory neuropathy may include pharmacologic therapy (such as gabapentin, pregabalin, capsaicin cream).¹⁶ Podiatrists can provide foot care and may provide shoes and inserts if appropriate. Physical therapists may assist with safety and mobility evaluations and can provide therapeutic exercises and assistive devices that improve function and quality of life.¹⁷

Conclusion

As cancer becomes more curable and more manageable, patients with cancer and survivors no longer rely exclusively on their oncologists for medical care. This is increasingly prevalent for patients with incurable but indolent cancers that may be present for years to decades, as acute and cumulative toxicities may complicate existing comorbidities. Thus, in this era of increasingly complex cancer therapies, multidisciplinary medical care that involves PCPs, specialists, and allied medical professionals, is essential for providing care that optimizes health and fully addresses patients’ needs.

Patients benefit from multidisciplinary care that coordinates management of complex medical problems. Traditionally, multidisciplinary cancer care involves oncology specialty providers in fields that include medical oncology, radiation oncology, and surgical oncology. Multidisciplinary cancer care intends to improve patient outcomes by bringing together different health care providers (HCPs) who are involved in the treatment of patients with cancer. Because new therapies are more effective and allow patients with cancer to live longer, adverse effects (AEs) are more likely to impact patients’ well-being, both while receiving treatment and long after it has completed. Thus, this population may benefit from an expanded approach to multidisciplinary care that includes input from specialty and primary care providers (PCPs), clinical pharmacy specialists (CPS), physical and occupational therapists, and patient navigators and educators.

We present 4 hypothetical cases, based on actual patients, that illustrate opportunities where multidisciplinary care coordination may improve patient experiences. These cases draw on current quality initiatives from the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program, which has focused on improving the quality of multidisciplinary cancer care at selected community centers, and the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patient-aligned care team (PACT) model, which brings together different health professionals to optimize primary care coordination.^1,2 In addition, the National Committee for Quality Assurance has introduced an educational initiative to facilitate implementation of an oncologic medical home.³ This initiative stresses increased multidisciplinary communication, patient-centered care delivery, and reduced fragmentation of care for this population. Despite these guidelines and experiences from other medical specialties, models for integrated cancer care have not been implemented in a prospective fashion within the VHA.

In this article, we focus on opportunities to take collaborative care approaches for the treatment of patients with follicular lymphoma (FL): a common, incurable, and often indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma.⁴ FL was selected because these patients may be treated numerous times and long-term sequalae can accumulate throughout their cancer continuum (a series of health events encompassing cancer screening, diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, relapse, and death).⁵ HCPs in distinct roles can assist patients with cancer in optimizing their health outcomes and overall wellbeing.⁶

Case Example 1

A 70-year-old male was diagnosed with stage IV FL. Because of his advanced disease, he began therapy with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone). Prednisone was administered at 100 mg daily on the first 5 days of each 21-day cycle. On day 4 of the first treatment cycle, the patient notified his oncologist that he had been very thirsty and his random blood sugar values on 2 different days were 283 mg/dL and 312 mg/dL. A laboratory review revealed his hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) 7 months prior was 5.6%.

Discussion

The high-dose prednisone component of this and other lymphoma therapy regimens can worsen diabetes mellitus (DM) control and/or worsen prediabetes. Patient characteristics that increase the risk of developing glucocorticoid-induced DM after CHOP chemotherapy include age ≥ 60 years, HbA_1c > 6.1%, and body mass index > 30.⁷ This patient did not have DM prior to the FL therapy initiation, but afterwards he met diagnostic criteria for DM. For completeness, other causes for elevated blood glucose should be ruled out (ie, infection, laboratory error, etc.). An oncologist often will triage acute hyperglycemia, treating immediately with IV fluids and/or insulin. Thereafter, ongoing chronic disease management for DM may be best managed by PCPs, certified DM educators, and registered dieticians.

Several programs involving multidisciplinary DM care, comprised of physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, certified DM educators, and/or pharmacists have been shown to improve HbA_1c, cardiovascular outcomes, and all-cause mortality, while reducing health care costs.⁸ In addition, patient navigators can assist patients with coordinating visits to disease-state specialists and identifying further educational needs. For example, in 1 program, nonclinical peer navigators were shown to improve the number of appointments attended and reduce HbA_1c in a population of patients with DM who were primarily minority, urban, and of low socioeconomic status.⁹ Thus, integrating DM care shows potential to improve outcomes for patients with lymphoma who develop glucocorticoid-induced DM.

Case Example 2

A 75-year-old male was diagnosed with FL. He was treated initially with bendamustine and rituximab. He required reinitiation of therapy 20 months later when he developed lymphadenopathy, fatigue, and night sweats and began treatment with oral idelalisib, a second-line therapy. Later, the patient presented to his PCP for a routine visit, and on medication reconciliation review, the patient reported regular use of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.

Discussion

Upon consultation with the CPS and the patient’s oncologist, the PCP confirmed trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole should be continued during therapy and for about 6 months following completion of therapy. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole is used for prophylaxis against Pneumocystis jirovecii (formerly Pneumocystis carinii). While use of prophylactic therapy is not necessary for all patients with FL, idelalisib impairs the function of circulating lymphoid B-cells and thus has been associated with an increased risk of serious infection.¹⁰ A CPS can provide insight that maximizes medication adherence and efficacy while minimizing food-drug, drug-drug interactions, and AEs. CPS have been shown to: improve adherence to oral therapies, increase prospective monitoring required for safe therapy dose selection, and document assessment of chemotherapy-related AEs.^11,12 Thus, multidisciplinary, integrated care is an important component of providing quality oncology care.

Case Example 3

A 60-year-old female presented to her PCP with a 2-week history of shortness of breath and leg swelling. She was treated for FL 4 years previously with 6 cycles of R-CHOP. She reported no chest pain and did not have a prior history of hypertension, DM, or heart disease. On physical exam, she had elevated jugular venous pressure to jaw at 45°, bilateral pulmonary rales, and 2+ pitting pretibial edema. Laboratory tests that included complete blood count, basic chemistries, and thyroid stimulating hormone were unremarkable, though brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) was elevated at 425 pg/mL.

As this patient’s laboratory results and physical examination suggested new-onset congestive heart failure, the PCP obtained an echocardiogram, which demonstrated an ejection fraction of 35% and global hypokinesis. Because the patient was symptomatic, she was admitted to the hospital to begin guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) including IV diuresis.

Discussion

Given the absence of significant risk factors and prior history of coronary artery disease, the most probable cause for this patient’s cardiomyopathy is doxorubicin. Doxorubicin is an anthracycline chemotherapy that can cause nonischemic, dilated cardiomyopathy, particularly when cumulative doses > 400 mg/m² are administered, or when combined with chest radiation.¹³ This patient benefited from GDMT for reduced ejection-fraction heart failure (HFrEF). Studies have demonstrated positive outcomes when HFrEF patients are cared for by a multidisciplinary team who focus of volume management as well as uptitration of therapies to target doses.¹⁴

Case Example 4

An 80-year-old female was diagnosed with stage III FL but did not require immediate therapy. After developing discomfort due to enlarging lymphadenopathy, she initiated therapy with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CVP). She presented to her oncologist for consideration of her fifth cycle of R-CVP and reported a burning sensation on the soles of her feet and numbness in her fingertips and toes. On examination, her pulses were intact and there were no signs of infection, reduced blood flow, or edema. The patient demonstrated decreased sensation on monofilament testing. She had no history of DM and a recent HbA_1c test was 4.9% An evaluation for other causes of neuropathy, such as hypothyroidism and vitamin B₁₂ deficiency was negative. Thus, vincristine therapy was identified as the most likely etiology for her peripheral neuropathy. The oncologist decided to proceed with cycle 5 of chemotherapy but reduced the dose of vincristine by 50%.

Discussion

Vincristine is a microtubule inhibitor used in many chemotherapy regimens and may cause reversible or permanent neuropathy, including autonomic (constipation), sensory (stocking-glove distribution), or motor (foot-drop).¹⁵ A nerve conduction study may be indicated as part of the diagnostic evaluation. Treatment for painful sensory neuropathy may include pharmacologic therapy (such as gabapentin, pregabalin, capsaicin cream).¹⁶ Podiatrists can provide foot care and may provide shoes and inserts if appropriate. Physical therapists may assist with safety and mobility evaluations and can provide therapeutic exercises and assistive devices that improve function and quality of life.¹⁷

Conclusion

As cancer becomes more curable and more manageable, patients with cancer and survivors no longer rely exclusively on their oncologists for medical care. This is increasingly prevalent for patients with incurable but indolent cancers that may be present for years to decades, as acute and cumulative toxicities may complicate existing comorbidities. Thus, in this era of increasingly complex cancer therapies, multidisciplinary medical care that involves PCPs, specialists, and allied medical professionals, is essential for providing care that optimizes health and fully addresses patients’ needs.

Patients benefit from multidisciplinary care that coordinates management of complex medical problems. Traditionally, multidisciplinary cancer care involves oncology specialty providers in fields that include medical oncology, radiation oncology, and surgical oncology. Multidisciplinary cancer care intends to improve patient outcomes by bringing together different health care providers (HCPs) who are involved in the treatment of patients with cancer. Because new therapies are more effective and allow patients with cancer to live longer, adverse effects (AEs) are more likely to impact patients’ well-being, both while receiving treatment and long after it has completed. Thus, this population may benefit from an expanded approach to multidisciplinary care that includes input from specialty and primary care providers (PCPs), clinical pharmacy specialists (CPS), physical and occupational therapists, and patient navigators and educators.

We present 4 hypothetical cases, based on actual patients, that illustrate opportunities where multidisciplinary care coordination may improve patient experiences. These cases draw on current quality initiatives from the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program, which has focused on improving the quality of multidisciplinary cancer care at selected community centers, and the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patient-aligned care team (PACT) model, which brings together different health professionals to optimize primary care coordination.^1,2 In addition, the National Committee for Quality Assurance has introduced an educational initiative to facilitate implementation of an oncologic medical home.³ This initiative stresses increased multidisciplinary communication, patient-centered care delivery, and reduced fragmentation of care for this population. Despite these guidelines and experiences from other medical specialties, models for integrated cancer care have not been implemented in a prospective fashion within the VHA.

In this article, we focus on opportunities to take collaborative care approaches for the treatment of patients with follicular lymphoma (FL): a common, incurable, and often indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma.⁴ FL was selected because these patients may be treated numerous times and long-term sequalae can accumulate throughout their cancer continuum (a series of health events encompassing cancer screening, diagnosis, treatment, survivorship, relapse, and death).⁵ HCPs in distinct roles can assist patients with cancer in optimizing their health outcomes and overall wellbeing.⁶

Case Example 1

A 70-year-old male was diagnosed with stage IV FL. Because of his advanced disease, he began therapy with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone). Prednisone was administered at 100 mg daily on the first 5 days of each 21-day cycle. On day 4 of the first treatment cycle, the patient notified his oncologist that he had been very thirsty and his random blood sugar values on 2 different days were 283 mg/dL and 312 mg/dL. A laboratory review revealed his hemoglobin A_1c (HbA_1c) 7 months prior was 5.6%.

Discussion

The high-dose prednisone component of this and other lymphoma therapy regimens can worsen diabetes mellitus (DM) control and/or worsen prediabetes. Patient characteristics that increase the risk of developing glucocorticoid-induced DM after CHOP chemotherapy include age ≥ 60 years, HbA_1c > 6.1%, and body mass index > 30.⁷ This patient did not have DM prior to the FL therapy initiation, but afterwards he met diagnostic criteria for DM. For completeness, other causes for elevated blood glucose should be ruled out (ie, infection, laboratory error, etc.). An oncologist often will triage acute hyperglycemia, treating immediately with IV fluids and/or insulin. Thereafter, ongoing chronic disease management for DM may be best managed by PCPs, certified DM educators, and registered dieticians.

Several programs involving multidisciplinary DM care, comprised of physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, certified DM educators, and/or pharmacists have been shown to improve HbA_1c, cardiovascular outcomes, and all-cause mortality, while reducing health care costs.⁸ In addition, patient navigators can assist patients with coordinating visits to disease-state specialists and identifying further educational needs. For example, in 1 program, nonclinical peer navigators were shown to improve the number of appointments attended and reduce HbA_1c in a population of patients with DM who were primarily minority, urban, and of low socioeconomic status.⁹ Thus, integrating DM care shows potential to improve outcomes for patients with lymphoma who develop glucocorticoid-induced DM.

Case Example 2

A 75-year-old male was diagnosed with FL. He was treated initially with bendamustine and rituximab. He required reinitiation of therapy 20 months later when he developed lymphadenopathy, fatigue, and night sweats and began treatment with oral idelalisib, a second-line therapy. Later, the patient presented to his PCP for a routine visit, and on medication reconciliation review, the patient reported regular use of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.

Discussion

Upon consultation with the CPS and the patient’s oncologist, the PCP confirmed trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole should be continued during therapy and for about 6 months following completion of therapy. Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole is used for prophylaxis against Pneumocystis jirovecii (formerly Pneumocystis carinii). While use of prophylactic therapy is not necessary for all patients with FL, idelalisib impairs the function of circulating lymphoid B-cells and thus has been associated with an increased risk of serious infection.¹⁰ A CPS can provide insight that maximizes medication adherence and efficacy while minimizing food-drug, drug-drug interactions, and AEs. CPS have been shown to: improve adherence to oral therapies, increase prospective monitoring required for safe therapy dose selection, and document assessment of chemotherapy-related AEs.^11,12 Thus, multidisciplinary, integrated care is an important component of providing quality oncology care.

Case Example 3

A 60-year-old female presented to her PCP with a 2-week history of shortness of breath and leg swelling. She was treated for FL 4 years previously with 6 cycles of R-CHOP. She reported no chest pain and did not have a prior history of hypertension, DM, or heart disease. On physical exam, she had elevated jugular venous pressure to jaw at 45°, bilateral pulmonary rales, and 2+ pitting pretibial edema. Laboratory tests that included complete blood count, basic chemistries, and thyroid stimulating hormone were unremarkable, though brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) was elevated at 425 pg/mL.

As this patient’s laboratory results and physical examination suggested new-onset congestive heart failure, the PCP obtained an echocardiogram, which demonstrated an ejection fraction of 35% and global hypokinesis. Because the patient was symptomatic, she was admitted to the hospital to begin guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) including IV diuresis.

Discussion

Given the absence of significant risk factors and prior history of coronary artery disease, the most probable cause for this patient’s cardiomyopathy is doxorubicin. Doxorubicin is an anthracycline chemotherapy that can cause nonischemic, dilated cardiomyopathy, particularly when cumulative doses > 400 mg/m² are administered, or when combined with chest radiation.¹³ This patient benefited from GDMT for reduced ejection-fraction heart failure (HFrEF). Studies have demonstrated positive outcomes when HFrEF patients are cared for by a multidisciplinary team who focus of volume management as well as uptitration of therapies to target doses.¹⁴

Case Example 4

An 80-year-old female was diagnosed with stage III FL but did not require immediate therapy. After developing discomfort due to enlarging lymphadenopathy, she initiated therapy with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CVP). She presented to her oncologist for consideration of her fifth cycle of R-CVP and reported a burning sensation on the soles of her feet and numbness in her fingertips and toes. On examination, her pulses were intact and there were no signs of infection, reduced blood flow, or edema. The patient demonstrated decreased sensation on monofilament testing. She had no history of DM and a recent HbA_1c test was 4.9% An evaluation for other causes of neuropathy, such as hypothyroidism and vitamin B₁₂ deficiency was negative. Thus, vincristine therapy was identified as the most likely etiology for her peripheral neuropathy. The oncologist decided to proceed with cycle 5 of chemotherapy but reduced the dose of vincristine by 50%.

Discussion

Vincristine is a microtubule inhibitor used in many chemotherapy regimens and may cause reversible or permanent neuropathy, including autonomic (constipation), sensory (stocking-glove distribution), or motor (foot-drop).¹⁵ A nerve conduction study may be indicated as part of the diagnostic evaluation. Treatment for painful sensory neuropathy may include pharmacologic therapy (such as gabapentin, pregabalin, capsaicin cream).¹⁶ Podiatrists can provide foot care and may provide shoes and inserts if appropriate. Physical therapists may assist with safety and mobility evaluations and can provide therapeutic exercises and assistive devices that improve function and quality of life.¹⁷

Conclusion

As cancer becomes more curable and more manageable, patients with cancer and survivors no longer rely exclusively on their oncologists for medical care. This is increasingly prevalent for patients with incurable but indolent cancers that may be present for years to decades, as acute and cumulative toxicities may complicate existing comorbidities. Thus, in this era of increasingly complex cancer therapies, multidisciplinary medical care that involves PCPs, specialists, and allied medical professionals, is essential for providing care that optimizes health and fully addresses patients’ needs.

Atypical vascular lesions (AVLs) are rare flesh-colored, erythematous, or violaceous macules, patches, papules, or plaques that may occur following adjuvant radiation in breast cancer patients who have undergone conservative lumpectomy.^1,2 They range in size from 1 mm to 6 cm and are most often confined to the radiation field. Presentation occurs 1 to 20 years following radiation, though the lesions most often present within 5 years.^1,2 Although generally considered benign, 2 of 29 cases of AVLs progressed to angiosarcoma over a 5-year follow-up period in a retrospective clinicopathologic study.¹

Atypical vascular lesions show considerable histologic and clinical overlap with radiation-induced angiosarcomas (RIAs), making differentiation between the two challenging.^3,4 Mentzel et al⁵ compared benign, atypical, and malignant postradiation vascular lesions with nonradiation-associated angiosarcomas and found that RIAs were highly variable histopathologically, ranging from well differentiated to poorly differentiated, with atypia ranging from mild to severe. Radiation-induced angiosarcomas could be distinguished from AVLs and nonradiation-associated angiosarcomas by their oncogene amplification and protein expression profiles. Most strikingly, they found amplification of the MYC oncogene by fluorescence in situ hybridization in the nucleus of almost all the RIA cells, which was not seen in AVLs or nonradiation-associated angiosarcomas. Similarly, they found positive nuclear staining for MYC protein by immunohistochemistry in the nucleus of almost all cases of RIA but not in AVL or nonradiation-associated angiosarcomas, making MYC staining a useful diagnostic marker.⁵ In contrast, a study by Patton et al¹ concluded that AVLs demonstrate morphologic patterns and clinical outcomes that suggest they are precursors of angiosarcoma rather than just markers of risk.

Atypical vascular lesions and RIAs usually follow a total radiation dose of 40 to 50 Gy, but RIAs typically are diagnosed later (approximately 10 years following exposure).^6,7 Although RIAs are rare, they are known to be aggressive and often high grade, with a median survival of less than 5 years.^6,7 Survival is poor even with radical surgical treatment.⁸ We present a patient with at least 29 AVLs following breast-conserving surgery and radiation and suggest the need for increased awareness of the elevated risk for RIA in patients with numerous benign AVLs.

Case Report

A 43-year-old woman with a history of breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving lumpectomy and adjuvant radiation presented to dermatology upon referral from surgical oncology for multiple lesions on the right breast (Figure 1). Seven years prior to presentation she was diagnosed with grade 3 poorly differentiated invasive ductal carcinoma with lobular features in the right breast that was positive for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 but negative for estrogen or progesterone receptors. She was given neoadjuvant treatment with trastuzumab, docetaxel, and carboplatin prior to conservation lumpectomy with adjuvant radiation. She received a total dose of 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions of 1.8 Gy each over 1 month, with a final boost of 10 Gy in 5 fractions of 2 Gy, each with local skin irritation as the only concern posttreatment.

She initially presented to dermatology approximately 3 years after radiotherapy (5 years prior to current presentation) with lesions on the breast that had been present for 6 to 9 months. Physical examination showed 2 firm, painless, 4- to 5-mm papules on the right upper breast. The patient was reassured that the lesions were not suspicious for malignancy; however, 3 years later she presented to surgical oncology with 8 bluish papules or macules (all approximately 4 mm in diameter) on the right breast. These lesions were biopsied and examined by 2 institutions. Pathology of the initial punch biopsy favored a diagnosis of AVLs, though the possibility of RIA could not be ruled out without a complete excisional biopsy. Two excisional biopsies a month later were again consistent with AVLs. In all cases, the lesions were negative for MYC protein. The patient was again reassured but referred to dermatology for a second opinion.

At the current presentation, physical examination showed at least 29 subcutaneous nodules on the right breast ranging in color from pink to deep blue to flesh colored with others more superficially hyperpigmented, possibly secondary to prior biopsy, and measuring 2 to 8 mm in diameter. Histopathologic examination of the biopsy specimens showed a vascular proliferation extending from the dermis into the subcutaneous tissue comprised of dilated and cavernous vascular channels lined by a single layer of endothelial cells with minimal cytologic atypia (Figure 2). There were focal areas of anastomosing slitlike vascular spaces dissecting dermal collagen. No features of malignancy, such as nuclear crowding, multilayering, or increased mitotic activity, were evident. Immunohistochemical studies for MYC protein were negative. The overall morphologic features and immunoprofile were felt to be most consistent with postradiation AVLs.

Comment

Conservative breast cancer surgery and radiotherapy are becoming more prevalent for breast cancer treatment, thus the number of patients likely to present with AVLs has increased. These patients are at risk for transformation to RIAs.⁶ It is important for clinicians to be aware of the diagnosis of both AVLs and RIAs and their management given their more frequent presentation. In most cases, one or a few AVLs are present, and excision is the treatment of choice. In a retrospective study by Brenn and Fletcher³ examining 16 patients with AVLs and 26 patients with RIA, the majority of cases of AVL had a single lesion and the maximum number of AVLs was 4. One patient in their study had 30 AVLs (each 3–4 mm in diameter), and she was diagnosed with RIA.³ Our patient—with at least 29 identifiable AVL lesions—was felt to be at considerable risk for developing RIA, as the only other case reported with this many AVLs developed RIA.¹ Given the large number of lesions, it was neither feasible to excise each one individually nor monitor all of them for malignant transformation.

Our case demonstrates the important role dermatologists may play in orchestrating care by a multispecialty team including oncology, radiation oncology, surgery, and plastic surgery. In our patient, a close examination of the literature by the dermatology team led to recognition of the potentially elevated risk for malignant transformation. The dermatology team also brought the case for review at the tumor board.

Although future studies are required to determine the relationship between AVL burden and the risk for progression to RIA, it is clear that a multidisciplinary approach and careful consideration of the current literature can prevent unnecessary morbidity and mortality for patients with this increasingly common problem.

Atypical vascular lesions (AVLs) are rare flesh-colored, erythematous, or violaceous macules, patches, papules, or plaques that may occur following adjuvant radiation in breast cancer patients who have undergone conservative lumpectomy.^1,2 They range in size from 1 mm to 6 cm and are most often confined to the radiation field. Presentation occurs 1 to 20 years following radiation, though the lesions most often present within 5 years.^1,2 Although generally considered benign, 2 of 29 cases of AVLs progressed to angiosarcoma over a 5-year follow-up period in a retrospective clinicopathologic study.¹

Atypical vascular lesions show considerable histologic and clinical overlap with radiation-induced angiosarcomas (RIAs), making differentiation between the two challenging.^3,4 Mentzel et al⁵ compared benign, atypical, and malignant postradiation vascular lesions with nonradiation-associated angiosarcomas and found that RIAs were highly variable histopathologically, ranging from well differentiated to poorly differentiated, with atypia ranging from mild to severe. Radiation-induced angiosarcomas could be distinguished from AVLs and nonradiation-associated angiosarcomas by their oncogene amplification and protein expression profiles. Most strikingly, they found amplification of the MYC oncogene by fluorescence in situ hybridization in the nucleus of almost all the RIA cells, which was not seen in AVLs or nonradiation-associated angiosarcomas. Similarly, they found positive nuclear staining for MYC protein by immunohistochemistry in the nucleus of almost all cases of RIA but not in AVL or nonradiation-associated angiosarcomas, making MYC staining a useful diagnostic marker.⁵ In contrast, a study by Patton et al¹ concluded that AVLs demonstrate morphologic patterns and clinical outcomes that suggest they are precursors of angiosarcoma rather than just markers of risk.

Atypical vascular lesions and RIAs usually follow a total radiation dose of 40 to 50 Gy, but RIAs typically are diagnosed later (approximately 10 years following exposure).^6,7 Although RIAs are rare, they are known to be aggressive and often high grade, with a median survival of less than 5 years.^6,7 Survival is poor even with radical surgical treatment.⁸ We present a patient with at least 29 AVLs following breast-conserving surgery and radiation and suggest the need for increased awareness of the elevated risk for RIA in patients with numerous benign AVLs.

Case Report

A 43-year-old woman with a history of breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving lumpectomy and adjuvant radiation presented to dermatology upon referral from surgical oncology for multiple lesions on the right breast (Figure 1). Seven years prior to presentation she was diagnosed with grade 3 poorly differentiated invasive ductal carcinoma with lobular features in the right breast that was positive for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 but negative for estrogen or progesterone receptors. She was given neoadjuvant treatment with trastuzumab, docetaxel, and carboplatin prior to conservation lumpectomy with adjuvant radiation. She received a total dose of 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions of 1.8 Gy each over 1 month, with a final boost of 10 Gy in 5 fractions of 2 Gy, each with local skin irritation as the only concern posttreatment.

She initially presented to dermatology approximately 3 years after radiotherapy (5 years prior to current presentation) with lesions on the breast that had been present for 6 to 9 months. Physical examination showed 2 firm, painless, 4- to 5-mm papules on the right upper breast. The patient was reassured that the lesions were not suspicious for malignancy; however, 3 years later she presented to surgical oncology with 8 bluish papules or macules (all approximately 4 mm in diameter) on the right breast. These lesions were biopsied and examined by 2 institutions. Pathology of the initial punch biopsy favored a diagnosis of AVLs, though the possibility of RIA could not be ruled out without a complete excisional biopsy. Two excisional biopsies a month later were again consistent with AVLs. In all cases, the lesions were negative for MYC protein. The patient was again reassured but referred to dermatology for a second opinion.

At the current presentation, physical examination showed at least 29 subcutaneous nodules on the right breast ranging in color from pink to deep blue to flesh colored with others more superficially hyperpigmented, possibly secondary to prior biopsy, and measuring 2 to 8 mm in diameter. Histopathologic examination of the biopsy specimens showed a vascular proliferation extending from the dermis into the subcutaneous tissue comprised of dilated and cavernous vascular channels lined by a single layer of endothelial cells with minimal cytologic atypia (Figure 2). There were focal areas of anastomosing slitlike vascular spaces dissecting dermal collagen. No features of malignancy, such as nuclear crowding, multilayering, or increased mitotic activity, were evident. Immunohistochemical studies for MYC protein were negative. The overall morphologic features and immunoprofile were felt to be most consistent with postradiation AVLs.

Comment

Conservative breast cancer surgery and radiotherapy are becoming more prevalent for breast cancer treatment, thus the number of patients likely to present with AVLs has increased. These patients are at risk for transformation to RIAs.⁶ It is important for clinicians to be aware of the diagnosis of both AVLs and RIAs and their management given their more frequent presentation. In most cases, one or a few AVLs are present, and excision is the treatment of choice. In a retrospective study by Brenn and Fletcher³ examining 16 patients with AVLs and 26 patients with RIA, the majority of cases of AVL had a single lesion and the maximum number of AVLs was 4. One patient in their study had 30 AVLs (each 3–4 mm in diameter), and she was diagnosed with RIA.³ Our patient—with at least 29 identifiable AVL lesions—was felt to be at considerable risk for developing RIA, as the only other case reported with this many AVLs developed RIA.¹ Given the large number of lesions, it was neither feasible to excise each one individually nor monitor all of them for malignant transformation.

Our case demonstrates the important role dermatologists may play in orchestrating care by a multispecialty team including oncology, radiation oncology, surgery, and plastic surgery. In our patient, a close examination of the literature by the dermatology team led to recognition of the potentially elevated risk for malignant transformation. The dermatology team also brought the case for review at the tumor board.

Although future studies are required to determine the relationship between AVL burden and the risk for progression to RIA, it is clear that a multidisciplinary approach and careful consideration of the current literature can prevent unnecessary morbidity and mortality for patients with this increasingly common problem.

Atypical vascular lesions (AVLs) are rare flesh-colored, erythematous, or violaceous macules, patches, papules, or plaques that may occur following adjuvant radiation in breast cancer patients who have undergone conservative lumpectomy.^1,2 They range in size from 1 mm to 6 cm and are most often confined to the radiation field. Presentation occurs 1 to 20 years following radiation, though the lesions most often present within 5 years.^1,2 Although generally considered benign, 2 of 29 cases of AVLs progressed to angiosarcoma over a 5-year follow-up period in a retrospective clinicopathologic study.¹

Atypical vascular lesions show considerable histologic and clinical overlap with radiation-induced angiosarcomas (RIAs), making differentiation between the two challenging.^3,4 Mentzel et al⁵ compared benign, atypical, and malignant postradiation vascular lesions with nonradiation-associated angiosarcomas and found that RIAs were highly variable histopathologically, ranging from well differentiated to poorly differentiated, with atypia ranging from mild to severe. Radiation-induced angiosarcomas could be distinguished from AVLs and nonradiation-associated angiosarcomas by their oncogene amplification and protein expression profiles. Most strikingly, they found amplification of the MYC oncogene by fluorescence in situ hybridization in the nucleus of almost all the RIA cells, which was not seen in AVLs or nonradiation-associated angiosarcomas. Similarly, they found positive nuclear staining for MYC protein by immunohistochemistry in the nucleus of almost all cases of RIA but not in AVL or nonradiation-associated angiosarcomas, making MYC staining a useful diagnostic marker.⁵ In contrast, a study by Patton et al¹ concluded that AVLs demonstrate morphologic patterns and clinical outcomes that suggest they are precursors of angiosarcoma rather than just markers of risk.

Atypical vascular lesions and RIAs usually follow a total radiation dose of 40 to 50 Gy, but RIAs typically are diagnosed later (approximately 10 years following exposure).^6,7 Although RIAs are rare, they are known to be aggressive and often high grade, with a median survival of less than 5 years.^6,7 Survival is poor even with radical surgical treatment.⁸ We present a patient with at least 29 AVLs following breast-conserving surgery and radiation and suggest the need for increased awareness of the elevated risk for RIA in patients with numerous benign AVLs.

Case Report

A 43-year-old woman with a history of breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving lumpectomy and adjuvant radiation presented to dermatology upon referral from surgical oncology for multiple lesions on the right breast (Figure 1). Seven years prior to presentation she was diagnosed with grade 3 poorly differentiated invasive ductal carcinoma with lobular features in the right breast that was positive for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 but negative for estrogen or progesterone receptors. She was given neoadjuvant treatment with trastuzumab, docetaxel, and carboplatin prior to conservation lumpectomy with adjuvant radiation. She received a total dose of 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions of 1.8 Gy each over 1 month, with a final boost of 10 Gy in 5 fractions of 2 Gy, each with local skin irritation as the only concern posttreatment.

She initially presented to dermatology approximately 3 years after radiotherapy (5 years prior to current presentation) with lesions on the breast that had been present for 6 to 9 months. Physical examination showed 2 firm, painless, 4- to 5-mm papules on the right upper breast. The patient was reassured that the lesions were not suspicious for malignancy; however, 3 years later she presented to surgical oncology with 8 bluish papules or macules (all approximately 4 mm in diameter) on the right breast. These lesions were biopsied and examined by 2 institutions. Pathology of the initial punch biopsy favored a diagnosis of AVLs, though the possibility of RIA could not be ruled out without a complete excisional biopsy. Two excisional biopsies a month later were again consistent with AVLs. In all cases, the lesions were negative for MYC protein. The patient was again reassured but referred to dermatology for a second opinion.

At the current presentation, physical examination showed at least 29 subcutaneous nodules on the right breast ranging in color from pink to deep blue to flesh colored with others more superficially hyperpigmented, possibly secondary to prior biopsy, and measuring 2 to 8 mm in diameter. Histopathologic examination of the biopsy specimens showed a vascular proliferation extending from the dermis into the subcutaneous tissue comprised of dilated and cavernous vascular channels lined by a single layer of endothelial cells with minimal cytologic atypia (Figure 2). There were focal areas of anastomosing slitlike vascular spaces dissecting dermal collagen. No features of malignancy, such as nuclear crowding, multilayering, or increased mitotic activity, were evident. Immunohistochemical studies for MYC protein were negative. The overall morphologic features and immunoprofile were felt to be most consistent with postradiation AVLs.

Comment

Conservative breast cancer surgery and radiotherapy are becoming more prevalent for breast cancer treatment, thus the number of patients likely to present with AVLs has increased. These patients are at risk for transformation to RIAs.⁶ It is important for clinicians to be aware of the diagnosis of both AVLs and RIAs and their management given their more frequent presentation. In most cases, one or a few AVLs are present, and excision is the treatment of choice. In a retrospective study by Brenn and Fletcher³ examining 16 patients with AVLs and 26 patients with RIA, the majority of cases of AVL had a single lesion and the maximum number of AVLs was 4. One patient in their study had 30 AVLs (each 3–4 mm in diameter), and she was diagnosed with RIA.³ Our patient—with at least 29 identifiable AVL lesions—was felt to be at considerable risk for developing RIA, as the only other case reported with this many AVLs developed RIA.¹ Given the large number of lesions, it was neither feasible to excise each one individually nor monitor all of them for malignant transformation.

Our case demonstrates the important role dermatologists may play in orchestrating care by a multispecialty team including oncology, radiation oncology, surgery, and plastic surgery. In our patient, a close examination of the literature by the dermatology team led to recognition of the potentially elevated risk for malignant transformation. The dermatology team also brought the case for review at the tumor board.

Although future studies are required to determine the relationship between AVL burden and the risk for progression to RIA, it is clear that a multidisciplinary approach and careful consideration of the current literature can prevent unnecessary morbidity and mortality for patients with this increasingly common problem.

Metatarsal bones are an unusual subsite for small bone involvement in osteosarcomas. This subgroup is often misdiagnosed and hence associated with significant treatment delays. The standard treatment of metatarsal osteosarcomas remains the same as for those treated at other sites, namely neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. Limb salvage surgery or metatarsectomy in the foot is often a challenge owing to the poor compartmentalization of the disease. We hereby describe the case of a young girl with a metatarsal osteosarcoma who was managed with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and limb salvage surgery.

Introduction

Osteosarcomas are the most common primary malignant bone tumor in children and adolescents. Although predominantly occurring in pediatric and adolescent age groups, bimodal distribution (with a second incidence peak occurring in the sixth and seventh decades) is not uncommon.¹ Osteosarcomas of the foot and small bones represent a rare and distinct clinical entity. This must have been a well-known observation for years that led to Watson-Jones stating, “Sarcoma of this [metatarsal] bone has not yet been reported in thousands of years in any country.”² The incidence of osteosarcomas of the foot is estimated to be from 0.2% to 2%.³

These tumors, owing to their rarity, often lead to diagnostic dilemmas and hence treatment delays.⁴ They are usually mistaken for inflammatory conditions and often treated with—but not limited to—curettages and drainage procedures.⁵ The following case of osteosarcoma of the metatarsal bone in a young girl highlights the importance of having a high index of clinical suspicion prior to treatment.

Case Presentation and Summary

A 10-year-old girl visited our outpatient clinic with a painful progressive swelling on the dorsum of the left foot of 2 months’ duration. There was no history of antecedent trauma or fever. Physical examination revealed a bony hard swelling measuring around 5 x 6 cm on the dorsum of the left foot around the region of the second metatarsal. There was no regional lymphadenopathy or distal neurovascular deficit. She was evaluated with a plain radiograph that demonstrated a lytic lesion in the left second metatarsal associated with cortical destruction and periosteal reaction (Figure 1). A subsequent magnetic resonance image (MRI) revealed a bony lesion destroying part of the left second metatarsal with cortical destruction and marrow involvement and affecting the soft tissue around the adjacent third metatarsal (Figure 2). Needle biopsy showed chondroblastic osteosarcoma. Computed tomography (CT) of the thorax and bone scan were both negative for distant metastases.

She received 3 cycles of a MAP (highdose methotrexate, doxorubicin, and cisplatin) regimen as neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Response assessment scans showed partial response (Figures 3A and B). We performed a wide excision of the second and third metatarsal with reconstruction using a segment of non-vascularized fibular graft as rigid fixation (Figure 4). The postoperative period was uneventful. She was able to begin partial weight bearing on the fourth postoperative day and her sutures were removed on the twelfth postoperative day. She received adjuvant chemotherapy following surgery. The final histopathology report showed residual disease with Huvos grade III response (>90% necrosis) with all margins negative for malignancy (Figure 5). At present, the child is disease-free at 5 months of treatment completion and is undergoing regular follow-up visits.

Discussion

Metatarsal involvement amongst smallbone osteosarcomas is uncommon.³ There are about 32 cases of osteosarcomas reported in the literature from 1940 to 2018 involving the metatarsal bones (Table 1). According to a review article from the Mayo Clinic, the most common bone of the foot involved is the calcaneum.⁶ While the incidence of osteosarcomas of the foot as a whole is around 0.2% to 2%,3 metatarsal involvement is documented in 0.5% of these patients.⁷ However, a recent study depicted metatarsal involvement in 33% of all osteosarcomas of the foot.⁸

Osteosarcomas at conventional sites tend to have a bimodal age distribution with respect to disease affliction.⁹ Metatarsal osteosarcomas, however, are more common in an older age group.^4,10 Our patient is probably the second youngest reported case of metatarsal osteosarcoma in the literature.¹¹

Biscaglia et al propounded that osteosarcomas of the metatarsal were a distinct subgroup due to the rarity of occurrence, anatomical location, and prognosis.⁴ This often led to misdiagnosis and subsequent inadequate or inappropriate surgery. In six out of the ten cases (60%) described in Table 1, an incorrect pretreatment diagnosis was made that led to treatment delay. None, except one patient, received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which is currently the standard of care. The average duration from symptom onset to diagnosis was found to be 2 years.⁴ However, in our case, the duration of symptoms was approximately 2 months.

Surgery for metatarsal osteosarcomas can be challenging, as the compartments of the foot are narrow spaces with poor demarcation. Limb salvage surgery in the form of metatarsectomy needs proper preoperative planning and execution. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy will serve to downstage the tumor within the fascial barriers of the metatarsal compartment.It has also been postulated that osteosarcoma of the foot may have a better prognosis and survival compared to other osteosarcoma subsites.¹⁰ This can be extrapolated from the fact that the majority are found to be low grade, and despite a long delay in treatment, there was no rapid increase in size and/or metastatic spread. However, tumor grade remains an important factor affecting survival— patients with higher grade tumors have worse survival.⁸

A number of differentials, including benign tumors, are to be kept in mind when diagnosing and treating such patients (Table 2). The most common benign tumors affecting the metatarsal are giant cell tumors (GCT) followed by chondromyxoid fibroma. Osteosarcomas and Ewing sarcomas constitute the malignant tumors.¹² Occasionally, infections like osteomyelitis of the small bones may mimic malignancy. The absence of an extensive soft tissue component and/or calcifications with the presence of bony changes (like sequestrum) favors a diagnosis of infection/osteomyelitis. In addition, clinical findings like fever, skin redness, and presence of a painful swelling (especially after onset of fever) point to an inflammatory pathology rather than malignancy. Stress fractures rarely simulate tumors. MRI showing marrow and soft tissue edema with a visible fracture line points to the diagnosis.

A plane radiograph showing cortical bone destruction with a soft tissue component and calcification should be considered suspicious and must be thoroughly evaluated prior to surgical treatment.¹³ In a young patient such as ours, the important differentials that need to be considered include Ewing sarcoma, chronic osteomyelitis, and eosinophilic granuloma, which can radiologically mimic osteosarcoma at this location.

Conclusions

Osteosarcoma of the metatarsal is rare. Our case remains unique as it reports the second youngest patient in the literature. Erroneous or delayed diagnosis resulting in inadequate tumor excision and limb loss (amputation) often occurs in a majority of the cases. Proper pretreatment radiological imaging becomes imperative, and when clinical suspicion is high, a needle biopsy must follow in those cases. Early diagnosis with administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy may allow us to perform limb salvage surgery or wide excision in these cases.

Acknowledgement
We would like to thank Dr. Sithara Aravind, Associate Professor, Department of Pathology, Malabar Cancer Center, for the photomicrographs.

Metatarsal bones are an unusual subsite for small bone involvement in osteosarcomas. This subgroup is often misdiagnosed and hence associated with significant treatment delays. The standard treatment of metatarsal osteosarcomas remains the same as for those treated at other sites, namely neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. Limb salvage surgery or metatarsectomy in the foot is often a challenge owing to the poor compartmentalization of the disease. We hereby describe the case of a young girl with a metatarsal osteosarcoma who was managed with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and limb salvage surgery.

Introduction

Osteosarcomas are the most common primary malignant bone tumor in children and adolescents. Although predominantly occurring in pediatric and adolescent age groups, bimodal distribution (with a second incidence peak occurring in the sixth and seventh decades) is not uncommon.¹ Osteosarcomas of the foot and small bones represent a rare and distinct clinical entity. This must have been a well-known observation for years that led to Watson-Jones stating, “Sarcoma of this [metatarsal] bone has not yet been reported in thousands of years in any country.”² The incidence of osteosarcomas of the foot is estimated to be from 0.2% to 2%.³

These tumors, owing to their rarity, often lead to diagnostic dilemmas and hence treatment delays.⁴ They are usually mistaken for inflammatory conditions and often treated with—but not limited to—curettages and drainage procedures.⁵ The following case of osteosarcoma of the metatarsal bone in a young girl highlights the importance of having a high index of clinical suspicion prior to treatment.

Case Presentation and Summary

A 10-year-old girl visited our outpatient clinic with a painful progressive swelling on the dorsum of the left foot of 2 months’ duration. There was no history of antecedent trauma or fever. Physical examination revealed a bony hard swelling measuring around 5 x 6 cm on the dorsum of the left foot around the region of the second metatarsal. There was no regional lymphadenopathy or distal neurovascular deficit. She was evaluated with a plain radiograph that demonstrated a lytic lesion in the left second metatarsal associated with cortical destruction and periosteal reaction (Figure 1). A subsequent magnetic resonance image (MRI) revealed a bony lesion destroying part of the left second metatarsal with cortical destruction and marrow involvement and affecting the soft tissue around the adjacent third metatarsal (Figure 2). Needle biopsy showed chondroblastic osteosarcoma. Computed tomography (CT) of the thorax and bone scan were both negative for distant metastases.

She received 3 cycles of a MAP (highdose methotrexate, doxorubicin, and cisplatin) regimen as neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Response assessment scans showed partial response (Figures 3A and B). We performed a wide excision of the second and third metatarsal with reconstruction using a segment of non-vascularized fibular graft as rigid fixation (Figure 4). The postoperative period was uneventful. She was able to begin partial weight bearing on the fourth postoperative day and her sutures were removed on the twelfth postoperative day. She received adjuvant chemotherapy following surgery. The final histopathology report showed residual disease with Huvos grade III response (>90% necrosis) with all margins negative for malignancy (Figure 5). At present, the child is disease-free at 5 months of treatment completion and is undergoing regular follow-up visits.

Discussion

Metatarsal involvement amongst smallbone osteosarcomas is uncommon.³ There are about 32 cases of osteosarcomas reported in the literature from 1940 to 2018 involving the metatarsal bones (Table 1). According to a review article from the Mayo Clinic, the most common bone of the foot involved is the calcaneum.⁶ While the incidence of osteosarcomas of the foot as a whole is around 0.2% to 2%,3 metatarsal involvement is documented in 0.5% of these patients.⁷ However, a recent study depicted metatarsal involvement in 33% of all osteosarcomas of the foot.⁸

Osteosarcomas at conventional sites tend to have a bimodal age distribution with respect to disease affliction.⁹ Metatarsal osteosarcomas, however, are more common in an older age group.^4,10 Our patient is probably the second youngest reported case of metatarsal osteosarcoma in the literature.¹¹

Biscaglia et al propounded that osteosarcomas of the metatarsal were a distinct subgroup due to the rarity of occurrence, anatomical location, and prognosis.⁴ This often led to misdiagnosis and subsequent inadequate or inappropriate surgery. In six out of the ten cases (60%) described in Table 1, an incorrect pretreatment diagnosis was made that led to treatment delay. None, except one patient, received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which is currently the standard of care. The average duration from symptom onset to diagnosis was found to be 2 years.⁴ However, in our case, the duration of symptoms was approximately 2 months.

Surgery for metatarsal osteosarcomas can be challenging, as the compartments of the foot are narrow spaces with poor demarcation. Limb salvage surgery in the form of metatarsectomy needs proper preoperative planning and execution. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy will serve to downstage the tumor within the fascial barriers of the metatarsal compartment.It has also been postulated that osteosarcoma of the foot may have a better prognosis and survival compared to other osteosarcoma subsites.¹⁰ This can be extrapolated from the fact that the majority are found to be low grade, and despite a long delay in treatment, there was no rapid increase in size and/or metastatic spread. However, tumor grade remains an important factor affecting survival— patients with higher grade tumors have worse survival.⁸

A number of differentials, including benign tumors, are to be kept in mind when diagnosing and treating such patients (Table 2). The most common benign tumors affecting the metatarsal are giant cell tumors (GCT) followed by chondromyxoid fibroma. Osteosarcomas and Ewing sarcomas constitute the malignant tumors.¹² Occasionally, infections like osteomyelitis of the small bones may mimic malignancy. The absence of an extensive soft tissue component and/or calcifications with the presence of bony changes (like sequestrum) favors a diagnosis of infection/osteomyelitis. In addition, clinical findings like fever, skin redness, and presence of a painful swelling (especially after onset of fever) point to an inflammatory pathology rather than malignancy. Stress fractures rarely simulate tumors. MRI showing marrow and soft tissue edema with a visible fracture line points to the diagnosis.

A plane radiograph showing cortical bone destruction with a soft tissue component and calcification should be considered suspicious and must be thoroughly evaluated prior to surgical treatment.¹³ In a young patient such as ours, the important differentials that need to be considered include Ewing sarcoma, chronic osteomyelitis, and eosinophilic granuloma, which can radiologically mimic osteosarcoma at this location.

Conclusions

Osteosarcoma of the metatarsal is rare. Our case remains unique as it reports the second youngest patient in the literature. Erroneous or delayed diagnosis resulting in inadequate tumor excision and limb loss (amputation) often occurs in a majority of the cases. Proper pretreatment radiological imaging becomes imperative, and when clinical suspicion is high, a needle biopsy must follow in those cases. Early diagnosis with administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy may allow us to perform limb salvage surgery or wide excision in these cases.

Acknowledgement
We would like to thank Dr. Sithara Aravind, Associate Professor, Department of Pathology, Malabar Cancer Center, for the photomicrographs.

Metatarsal bones are an unusual subsite for small bone involvement in osteosarcomas. This subgroup is often misdiagnosed and hence associated with significant treatment delays. The standard treatment of metatarsal osteosarcomas remains the same as for those treated at other sites, namely neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. Limb salvage surgery or metatarsectomy in the foot is often a challenge owing to the poor compartmentalization of the disease. We hereby describe the case of a young girl with a metatarsal osteosarcoma who was managed with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and limb salvage surgery.

Introduction

Osteosarcomas are the most common primary malignant bone tumor in children and adolescents. Although predominantly occurring in pediatric and adolescent age groups, bimodal distribution (with a second incidence peak occurring in the sixth and seventh decades) is not uncommon.¹ Osteosarcomas of the foot and small bones represent a rare and distinct clinical entity. This must have been a well-known observation for years that led to Watson-Jones stating, “Sarcoma of this [metatarsal] bone has not yet been reported in thousands of years in any country.”² The incidence of osteosarcomas of the foot is estimated to be from 0.2% to 2%.³

These tumors, owing to their rarity, often lead to diagnostic dilemmas and hence treatment delays.⁴ They are usually mistaken for inflammatory conditions and often treated with—but not limited to—curettages and drainage procedures.⁵ The following case of osteosarcoma of the metatarsal bone in a young girl highlights the importance of having a high index of clinical suspicion prior to treatment.

Case Presentation and Summary

A 10-year-old girl visited our outpatient clinic with a painful progressive swelling on the dorsum of the left foot of 2 months’ duration. There was no history of antecedent trauma or fever. Physical examination revealed a bony hard swelling measuring around 5 x 6 cm on the dorsum of the left foot around the region of the second metatarsal. There was no regional lymphadenopathy or distal neurovascular deficit. She was evaluated with a plain radiograph that demonstrated a lytic lesion in the left second metatarsal associated with cortical destruction and periosteal reaction (Figure 1). A subsequent magnetic resonance image (MRI) revealed a bony lesion destroying part of the left second metatarsal with cortical destruction and marrow involvement and affecting the soft tissue around the adjacent third metatarsal (Figure 2). Needle biopsy showed chondroblastic osteosarcoma. Computed tomography (CT) of the thorax and bone scan were both negative for distant metastases.

She received 3 cycles of a MAP (highdose methotrexate, doxorubicin, and cisplatin) regimen as neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Response assessment scans showed partial response (Figures 3A and B). We performed a wide excision of the second and third metatarsal with reconstruction using a segment of non-vascularized fibular graft as rigid fixation (Figure 4). The postoperative period was uneventful. She was able to begin partial weight bearing on the fourth postoperative day and her sutures were removed on the twelfth postoperative day. She received adjuvant chemotherapy following surgery. The final histopathology report showed residual disease with Huvos grade III response (>90% necrosis) with all margins negative for malignancy (Figure 5). At present, the child is disease-free at 5 months of treatment completion and is undergoing regular follow-up visits.

Discussion

Metatarsal involvement amongst smallbone osteosarcomas is uncommon.³ There are about 32 cases of osteosarcomas reported in the literature from 1940 to 2018 involving the metatarsal bones (Table 1). According to a review article from the Mayo Clinic, the most common bone of the foot involved is the calcaneum.⁶ While the incidence of osteosarcomas of the foot as a whole is around 0.2% to 2%,3 metatarsal involvement is documented in 0.5% of these patients.⁷ However, a recent study depicted metatarsal involvement in 33% of all osteosarcomas of the foot.⁸

Osteosarcomas at conventional sites tend to have a bimodal age distribution with respect to disease affliction.⁹ Metatarsal osteosarcomas, however, are more common in an older age group.^4,10 Our patient is probably the second youngest reported case of metatarsal osteosarcoma in the literature.¹¹

Biscaglia et al propounded that osteosarcomas of the metatarsal were a distinct subgroup due to the rarity of occurrence, anatomical location, and prognosis.⁴ This often led to misdiagnosis and subsequent inadequate or inappropriate surgery. In six out of the ten cases (60%) described in Table 1, an incorrect pretreatment diagnosis was made that led to treatment delay. None, except one patient, received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which is currently the standard of care. The average duration from symptom onset to diagnosis was found to be 2 years.⁴ However, in our case, the duration of symptoms was approximately 2 months.

Surgery for metatarsal osteosarcomas can be challenging, as the compartments of the foot are narrow spaces with poor demarcation. Limb salvage surgery in the form of metatarsectomy needs proper preoperative planning and execution. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy will serve to downstage the tumor within the fascial barriers of the metatarsal compartment.It has also been postulated that osteosarcoma of the foot may have a better prognosis and survival compared to other osteosarcoma subsites.¹⁰ This can be extrapolated from the fact that the majority are found to be low grade, and despite a long delay in treatment, there was no rapid increase in size and/or metastatic spread. However, tumor grade remains an important factor affecting survival— patients with higher grade tumors have worse survival.⁸

A number of differentials, including benign tumors, are to be kept in mind when diagnosing and treating such patients (Table 2). The most common benign tumors affecting the metatarsal are giant cell tumors (GCT) followed by chondromyxoid fibroma. Osteosarcomas and Ewing sarcomas constitute the malignant tumors.¹² Occasionally, infections like osteomyelitis of the small bones may mimic malignancy. The absence of an extensive soft tissue component and/or calcifications with the presence of bony changes (like sequestrum) favors a diagnosis of infection/osteomyelitis. In addition, clinical findings like fever, skin redness, and presence of a painful swelling (especially after onset of fever) point to an inflammatory pathology rather than malignancy. Stress fractures rarely simulate tumors. MRI showing marrow and soft tissue edema with a visible fracture line points to the diagnosis.

A plane radiograph showing cortical bone destruction with a soft tissue component and calcification should be considered suspicious and must be thoroughly evaluated prior to surgical treatment.¹³ In a young patient such as ours, the important differentials that need to be considered include Ewing sarcoma, chronic osteomyelitis, and eosinophilic granuloma, which can radiologically mimic osteosarcoma at this location.

Conclusions

Osteosarcoma of the metatarsal is rare. Our case remains unique as it reports the second youngest patient in the literature. Erroneous or delayed diagnosis resulting in inadequate tumor excision and limb loss (amputation) often occurs in a majority of the cases. Proper pretreatment radiological imaging becomes imperative, and when clinical suspicion is high, a needle biopsy must follow in those cases. Early diagnosis with administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy may allow us to perform limb salvage surgery or wide excision in these cases.

Acknowledgement
We would like to thank Dr. Sithara Aravind, Associate Professor, Department of Pathology, Malabar Cancer Center, for the photomicrographs.