Article Text

Download PDFPDF
CASE REPORT
Macrophagic myofasciitis: a challenging diagnosis
  1. Daniela Soares Santos1,
  2. Arsénio Santos1,
  3. Olinda Rebelo2,
  4. Rui M Santos1
  1. 1Internal Medicine, Centro Hospitalar e Universitario de Coimbra EPE, Coimbra, Portugal
  2. 2Neuropathology, Centro Hospitalar e Universitario de Coimbra EPE, Coimbra, Portugal
  1. Correspondence to Dr Daniela Soares Santos, danielafssantos{at}gmail.com

Summary

A 25-year-old man admitted for generalised muscle pain with an insidious onset 3 years ago. He had exercise intolerance and decrease in muscle strength, requiring gait support. He was previously healthy, with no chronic medication or recent history of drugs or toxics. National vaccination plan actualised with hepatitis B and tetanus vaccines administered 10 and 2 years, respectively, before symptom onset. No analytical, imaging or electromyography changes were found. Muscle biopsy revealed an inflammatory infiltrate predominantly macrophagic with aluminium deposits suggestive of macrophagic myofasciitis (MMF). It is probably associated with vaccines previously administered. MMF lesion can be regarded as pathological only if detected at least 18 months after last aluminic immunisation, as our case illustrates.

  • muscle disease
  • pathology
  • medical management

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors All the authors have a role in the management of the patient in the hospital admission. DSS and AS received the patient and oriented all the management of them during hospital admission and after discharge. RMS supervised the work of the medical team. OR is the neuropathologist who found alterations in the muscle biopsy that allowed the diagnosis. DSS and AS wrote the manuscript. The manuscript was revised critically by RMS who provided the final approval of the version published.

  • Funding We have not a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Obtained.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.