الفهرس 
? Classification and Nomenclature of Vascular AnomaliesOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 151 |  |  |
| | | from | 151 | | |
Abstract
Background: Vascular anomalies (VAs) represent a spectrum of disorders from a simple “birthmark” to life- threatening entities. Incorrect nomenclature and misdiagnoses are commonly experienced by patients with these anomalies. Accurate diagnosis is crucial for appropriate evaluation and management, often requiring multidisciplinary specialists.
Aim of the work: The aim of this study is to emphasize the role of dynamic contrast MRI and ultrasound in evaluation of soft tissue vascular anomalies and subsequently in assigning the proper treatment.
Patients and Methods: All available cases of soft tissue vascular anomalies in the pediatric age group attending to the radiology department for a 6 months period were included in the study starting from February 2021.
Results: Our results showed that the US had a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 86.4% and accuracy of 84.0% in detection of hemangioma compared to MRI. The US had a sensitivity of 53.8 %, specificity of 91.7% and accuracy of 88% in detection of venous malformation compared to MRI. US had a sensitivity of 33.3 %, specificity of 95.5 % and accuracy of 88% in detection of Klippel trenaunay syndrome compared to MRI. While the US had a sensitivity of 33.3%, specificity of 90.9 % and accuracy of 84% in detection of lymphatic malformation compared to MRI. In the case of mixed low flow malformation US had sensitivity of 0%, specificity of 91.3% and accuracy of 84%.
Conclusion: The previously stated results denote that US has high sensitivity & specificity in diagnosis of vascular anomalies especially in hemangioma; thus when imaging is needed in diagnosis of vascular malformations US should be considered positively.