You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 141 No. 3, March 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Review
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (19)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Dermatology
 •Dermatologic Disorders
 •Nevi
 •Review
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Phacomatosis Pigmentovascularis Revisited and Reclassified

Rudolf Happle, MD

Arch Dermatol. 2005;141:385-388.

Objective  To provide a new comprehensible and practicable classification by use of descriptive terms to distinguish the various types of phacomatosis pigmentovascularis (PPV), which has previously been classified by numbers and letters that are difficult to memorize.

Study Selection  Published case reports on PPV were reassessed.

Data Extraction and Data Synthesis  A critical review revealed that only 3 well-established types of PPV so far exist. To eliminate the cumbersome traditional classification by numbering and lettering, the following new terms are proposed: phacomatosis cesioflammea (blue spots [caesius = bluish gray] and nevus flammeus); phacomatosis spilorosea (nevus spilus coexisting with a pale-pink telangiectatic nevus), and phacomatosis cesiomarmorata (blue spots and cutis marmorata telangiectatica congenita). Phacomatosis cesioflammea is identical with the traditional types IIa and IIb; phacomatosis spilorosea corresponds to types IIIa and IIIb; and phacomatosis cesiomarmorata is a descriptive term for type V. A categorical distinction of cases with and without extracutaneous anomalies seems inappropriate. The traditional type I does not exist, and the extremely rare traditional type IV is now included in the group of unclassifiable forms.

Conclusion  The proposed new classification of PPV by using 3 descriptive terms may be easier to memorize compared with the time-honored grouping of in part not even existing subtypes by numbers and letters.


Author Affiliations: Department of Dermatology, Philipp University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2005 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.