These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A 16-year retrospective study of vascular anomalies in the head and neck region.
    Author: Leyman B, Govaerts D, Dormaar JT, Meeus J, Bila M, Coropciuc R, Willaert R, Politis C.
    Journal: Head Face Med; 2023 Aug 01; 19(1):32. PubMed ID: 37528467.
    Abstract:
    Depending on the diagnostic modality, the classification of vascular anomalies varies and so does the nomenclature. The 'International Society for the Study of Vascular Anomalies' (ISSVA) is the most widely accepted classification in the literature and is mainly based on the radiologic and clinical presentation. The aim of this article is to review the clinical practice of diagnosis and treatment of vascular anomalies in the head and neck region in a university hospital, with special focus on the nomenclature. All patients with a vascular anomaly presenting to the department of oral and maxillofacial surgery were reviewed in a retrospective manner. Nomenclature, diagnostic process, lesion characteristics, treatment and outcome were examined. The lesions were (re)classified according to the ISSVA classification. A total of 185 patients were identified, of which 12.4% (n = 23) had a congenital anomaly. After reclassification, the most common lesions were venous malformations (n = 47, 25.4%), followed by lobular capillary hemangiomas (n = 17, 9.2%). A group of 39 anomalies could not be further specified. One hundred and one patients (54,6%) received treatment, of which 93 were treated surgically (92,1% of treated patients). Endovascular treatment was considered in 41 patients but applied in only eight. This strict selection led to a low a complication rate. We provide an overview of the clinical practice in the management of vascular anomalies in a university hospital. The histology report is a source of miscommunication because clinicians use the ISSVA classification, while pathologists use the WHO classification. Every professional involved should be aware of the differences in classification and nomenclature.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]