Current classification and terminology of pediatric vascular anomalies.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to review new terminology to diagnose, classify, and refer patients with vascular anomalies for additional imaging, intervention, and treatment. CONCLUSION: In recent decades, much has been learned regarding the histopathology, cause, and treatment of vascular anomalies. As information has been gleaned, a new classification system has emerged that divides vascular anomalies into neoplasms and malformations. Its utility is based on accurate initial diagnosis that correlates consistently with clinical presentation, disease course, and treatment.

Vascular anomalies in pediatric patients: updated classification, imaging, and therapy.

Recent advances in knowledge regarding histopathology, cause, and treatment of pediatric vascular anomalies have led to substantial changes in classification and terminology. Over the past two decades, various subspecialists have adopted a new classification system proposed by the International Society for the Study of Vascular Anomalies (ISSVA). The ISSVA classification of vascular anomalies divides vascular anomalies into two categories: vascular neoplasms and malformations. It has been widely adopted by various pediatric subspecialists, because it reliably correlates patient presentation and disease progression, with more accurate histology, diagnosis, imaging, and treatment.

Impact of ABR changes on pediatric radiology residency training.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of new ABR changes on pediatric radiology residency training in terms of the number, timing, availability, and funding of pediatric radiology rotations. METHODS: Participants were selected by using the ACGME's list of accredited American radiology residency programs, and data were collected via a survey. Program directors or persons designated by the program directors filled out the surveys. RESULTS: Of 186 programs, 84 (45%) responded. Three months of pediatric radiology were required in 61.0% of programs, with most having their residents complete one pediatric rotation during postgraduate years 2, 3, and 4. In 46% of training programs, pediatric radiology rotations were completed at the home institution. Seven percent of the programs plan to decrease the number of required pediatric rotations, while 75% plan no changes. Additional rotations in areas of interest are planned for 82% of programs. Only 54% could provide additional rotations in all 10 subspecialties, and 57% indicated that it was "very unlikely" or "impossible" that residents could acquire ≥12 months in a single area. Pediatric radiology is among the top 3 most frequent subspecialty areas that cannot be accommodated, along with obstetric and gynecologic (women's) and cardiac imaging. Funding limitations for pediatric rotations were not considered a barrier at 51% of programs. CONCLUSIONS: Seven percent of residency programs plan to cut back the overall number of pediatric radiology core rotations and move them to earlier in training (20%). Although 82% of programs said that they plan to provide more time in areas of interest, 57% said that it is very unlikely or impossible that residents could accumulate ≥12 months in an area of interest. It is possible that funding may limit access to additional pediatric rotations in up to 44% of programs. Seventeen of the programs did not know how their institution funded pediatric radiology rotations.