4.6 Review

Partially involuting congenital hemangiomas: A report of 8 cases and review of the literature

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY
Volume 70, Issue 1, Pages 75-79

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2013.09.018

Keywords

infantile hemangioma; noninvoluting congenital hemangioma; partially involuting congenital hemangioma; rapidly involuting congenital hemangioma

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Congenital hemangiomas have been divided into 2 major subtypes based on clinical behavior: rapidly involuting congenital hemangioma (RICH) and noninvoluting congenital hemangioma (NICH). Objective: We describe a clinical subtype of congenital hemangioma that begins as a RICH but fails to completely involute and persists as a NICH-like lesion. We propose the term partially involuting congenital hemangioma'' for this lesion with overlapping features. Methods: A review of the medical charts, serial clinical photographs, imaging, and biopsies performed on children with a diagnosis of partially involuting congenital hemangioma between 2001 and 2012 at Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine pediatric dermatology/vascular anomalies clinic was performed. Results: Eight full-term, healthy infants presented at birth with vascular lesions typical of RICH. Affected locations included the head and neck, trunk, or extremities. Size varied from 2.0 x 1.5 cm to 13.0 x 8.5 cm. All had rapid involution during the first 12 to 30 months of life before stabilizing in size and appearance. Limitations: Only a small number of cases were identified. Conclusion: Partially involuting congenital hemangiomas are congenital hemangiomas with a distinct behavior, evolving from RICH to persistent NICH-like lesions. Their recognition and study will help us better understand whether RICH and NICH are indeed separate entities or simply part of a spectrum.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available