Unveiling a foreign body masquerading as periarticular calcification: a case report.

INTRODUCTION: Evaluating isolated extremity discomfort can be challenging when initial imaging and exams provide limited information. Though subtle patient history hints often underlie occult pathologies, benign symptoms are frequently miscategorized as idiopathic. CASE PRESENTATION: We present a case of retained glass obscuring as acute calcific periarthritis on imaging. A 48-year-old White male with vague fifth metacarpophalangeal joint pain had unrevealing exams, but radiographs showed periarticular calcification concerning inflammation. Surgical exploration unexpectedly revealed an encapsulated glass fragment eroding bone. Further history uncovered a forgotten glass laceration decade prior. The foreign body was removed, resolving symptoms. DISCUSSION: This case reveals two imperative diagnostic principles for nonspecific extremity pain: (1) advanced imaging lacks specificity to differentiate inflammatory arthropathies from alternate intra-articular processes such as foreign bodies, and (2) obscure patient history questions unearth causal subtleties that direct accurate diagnosis. Though initial scans suggested acute calcific periarthritis, exhaustive revisiting of the patient's subtle decade-old glass cut proved pivotal in illuminating the underlying driver of symptoms. CONCLUSION: Our findings underscore the critical limitations of imaging and the vital role that meticulous history-taking plays in clarifying ambiguous chronic limb presentations. They spotlight the imperative of probing even distant trauma when symptoms seem disconnected from causative events. This case reinforces the comprehensive evaluation of all subtle patient clues as key in illuminating elusive extremity pain etiologies.

Electron microscopy study of 496 cases of lupus nephritis: A single-center experience.

INTRODUCTION: Renal involvement is seen in about 40-82% of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) Asian patients. The exact diagnosis and classification of lupus nephritis are important for treatment and prognosis. This study aimed to investigate the value of electron microscopy (EM) in the diagnosis and classification of lupus nephritis compared with light microscopy. METHOD: In this cross-sectional referral-center 16-year study of lupus nephritis, the final diagnosis was based on the EM study. Primary light microscopy findings were compared with EM diagnosis. Moreover, Immunofluorescence patterns distribution was assessed. RESULTS: From 496 patients diagnosed with lupus nephritis based on EM, 225(45.4%) of patients were categorized in class IV, followed by 98(19.7%), 93(18.8%), 46(9.3%), and 14(2.8%) who were categorized into classes of II, III, V, and VI respectively. Only 1(0.2%) patient belonged to class I, and 19(3.8%) cases were diagnosed with mixed two classes. Using EM was essential for diagnosing 25.6% of cases taking the correct classification by light microscopy into account; however, disregarding correct classification, this could change to a 7.4% contribution rate of EM. The most common cause of misdiagnosis, disregarding incorrect classification, was inadequate or wrong tissue. Positive associations were detected between tubular atrophy and interstitial fibrosis of both electron and light microscopy with different classes (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: While light microscopy is highly accurate for diagnosing lupus nephritis regardless of correct classification, EM contributes substantially to the correct classification of lupus nephritis types.