Congenital haemangiomas: a single-centre retrospective review.
dermatology
neonatology
therapeutics
Journal
BMJ paediatrics open
ISSN: 2399-9772
Titre abrégé: BMJ Paediatr Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101715309
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
23
07
2020
revised:
29
09
2020
accepted:
20
10
2020
entrez:
16
12
2020
pubmed:
17
12
2020
medline:
17
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Congenital haemangiomas (CHs) are rare, benign vascular tumours that are fully developed at birth. Three subtypes of CHs have been described based on clinical behaviour: rapidly involuting CHs (RICHs), non-involuting CHs (NICHs) and partially involuting CHs (PICHs). We explore in our study clinical, evolutionary and paraclinical characteristics of the three CH subtypes. Children with CH attending our department of paediatric dermatology at Bordeaux University Hospital over a 13-year period were retrospectively included. Epidemiological, clinical and evolutionary data, photographs and imaging results were reviewed. All available tissue samples were histologically examined. We included 57 patients: 22 with RICH, 22 with NICH and 13 with PICH. Males predominated (ratio 1.7); the most common CH location was on the limbs. RICH, NICH and PICH exhibited overlapping characteristics; all were single telangiectatic lesions with pale peripheral halos. At birth, NICHs were flat but RICHs and PICHs bulky. The median age at complete RICH involution was 12 months. One-third of CHs that appeared RICH-like at birth underwent incomplete involution to become PICHs. Heart failure and thrombocytopenia were rare complications. PICHs were frequently ulcerated. Pain was common for NICH and PICH. The imaging and histological data of the three CH subtypes were rather similar. We describe the characteristics and evolution of the three CH subtypes using a case series. Certain overlapping features were apparent, reinforcing the hypothesis that RICH, NICH and PICH lie on the same pathological spectrum.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33324762
doi: 10.1136/bmjpo-2020-000816
pii: bmjpo-2020-000816
pmc: PMC7722829
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e000816Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
Pediatr Dermatol. 2018 May;35(3):e159-e160
pubmed: 29572940
Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 2006 Aug-Oct;51(4-5):339-46
pubmed: 16997442
Am J Hum Genet. 2016 Apr 7;98(4):789-95
pubmed: 27058448
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2003 Apr;48(4):477-93; quiz 494-6
pubmed: 12664009
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004 Jun;50(6):875-82
pubmed: 15153887
Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2005 Sep-Oct;7(5):307-11
pubmed: 16172338
Acta Paediatr. 2003 Oct;92(10):1216-8
pubmed: 14632343
Lancet. 2017 Jul 1;390(10089):85-94
pubmed: 28089471
Hum Pathol. 2009 Oct;40(10):1467-73
pubmed: 19454356
Pediatr Dev Pathol. 2003 Nov-Dec;6(6):495-510
pubmed: 15018449
J Pediatr. 1996 Mar;128(3):329-35
pubmed: 8774499
Pediatr Dermatol. 2009 Mar-Apr;26(2):225-6
pubmed: 19419482
J Pediatr Surg. 2002 Mar;37(3):318-26
pubmed: 11877641
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014 May;70(5):899-903
pubmed: 24630000
Pathology. 2017 Jun;49(4):356-362
pubmed: 28438388
Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac. 2007 Apr;108(2):109-14
pubmed: 17350057
Br J Dermatol. 2008 Jun;158(6):1363-70
pubmed: 18410425
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014 Jan;70(1):75-9
pubmed: 24176519
JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Apr;151(4):422-5
pubmed: 25565634
Pediatr Radiol. 2005 Dec;35(12):1178-85
pubmed: 16078073
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001 Jun;107(7):1647-54
pubmed: 11391180
Histopathology. 2020 Aug;77(2):275-283
pubmed: 32281140
J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2018 Feb;47(2):39-44
pubmed: 29208502
Pediatr Dermatol. 2013 Nov-Dec;30(6):e180-90
pubmed: 23025620