3.8 Article

An unusual case of hobnail hemangioma mimicking pyogenic granuloma

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajoms.2023.05.008

关键词

Hobnail hemangioma; Hobnail appearance; Lymphatic malformations; Pyogenic granuloma; Tongue

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hobnail hemangioma is a rare vascular tumor that typically occurs in young or middle-aged individuals. This study reports an unusual case of hobnail hemangioma on the tongue with pyogenic granuloma-like appearances. The patient underwent successful surgery and showed no recurrence after 2 years.
Hobnail hemangioma is a vascular tumor that typically occurs in young or middle-aged individuals. It usually affects the limbs or trunk but rarely the head and neck region. Hobnail hemangioma is classified as a benign vascular tumor. However, some authors emphasize that hobnail hemangioma is not a vascular tumor but a lymphatic malformation. Here, we report an unusual case of a hobnail hemangioma on the tongue with pyogenic granuloma-like appearances. A 50-year-old woman visited our department with a chief complaint of bleeding and pain on the right lateral side of her tongue. On intraoral examination, an irregular swelling of approximately 28 x 15 mm in size with a 10 x 10 mm ulcer with a well-defined border in the center was seen on the right lateral side of the tongue. Histopathologically, the subepithelial lesion demonstrated numerous neutrophilic infiltrates and capillary proliferation resembling a pyogenic granuloma. The deeper lesion showed abnormal dilated and slit-like vessels with a hobnail appearance intervening between collagen and vascular bundles, accompanied by minute hemosiderin deposition. All abnormal vessels were D2-40 positive, but WT1 was negative, which could indicate the nature of the hobnail hemangioma with inflammation. The patient shows no evidence of recurrence 2 years after surgery. Hobnail hemangioma is extremely rare but should be considered a differential diagnosis of oral vascular lesions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据