BMC Ophthalmology (Jan 2024)

A case of bilateral amyloidosis localized to extraocular muscles mimicking thyroid eye disease

  • Natsuyo Yoshida-Hata,
  • Masashi Mimura,
  • Miwa Aikawa,
  • Tomoyuki Kashima

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-024-03295-y
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 24, no. 1
pp. 1 – 5

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Amyloidosis is a rare condition characterized by the abnormal deposition of amyloid proteins in various tissues and organs. While systemic amyloidosis has been well-documented, amyloid deposition in extraocular muscles is an exceptionally rare occurrence, with only 35 reported cases. This case report sheds light on the importance of considering amyloidosis in the differential diagnosis of patients presenting with proptosis and diplopia, which are often associated with thyroid eye disease. Case presentation A woman in her twenties sought medical attention due to a complaint of diplopia. Her ocular examination revealed almost normal findings except for exotropia and proptosis. Orbital magnetic resonance imaging displayed fusiform enlargement of nearly all eye muscles, a presentation typically observed in thyroid eye disease. However, despite corticosteroid therapy, her symptoms showed no improvement. Given the unusual lack of response to conventional treatment, and inhomogeneous enhancement of the muscle, an extraocular muscle biopsy was conducted. This biopsy yielded a unique finding—amyloid deposition within the muscle tissue. This discovery was particularly intriguing due to the extreme rarity of amyloidosis affecting extraocular muscles, with fewer than three dozen documented cases worldwide. Conclusion This unique case underscores the critical need for a comprehensive approach to diagnosing patients with proptosis and diplopia. While these symptoms are commonly attributed to thyroid eye disease, it is essential to consider alternative diagnoses such as amyloidosis, especially when standard treatments fail to yield results. The discovery of amyloid deposition in the extraocular muscles, although exceedingly rare, emphasizes the significance of a thorough differential diagnosis. In conclusion, this case report highlights the importance of vigilance in clinical practice, encouraging ophthalmologists to explore less common diagnostic possibilities when faced with challenging cases. Further research and clinical investigation are warranted to better understand the mechanisms and potential treatments for amyloidosis affecting the extraocular muscles.

Keywords