PURPOSE: To report the magnetic resonance (MR) imaging features of finger hemangiomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen patients clinically suspected of having hemangioma of the finger underwent 1.5-T MR imaging with a customized local gradient coil. The location, size, margins, signal intensity, and enhancement patterns of the lesions were noted. In accordance with the literature on MR imaging of deep hemangiomas, the authors' findings could be divided into those with typical features-that is, high signal intensity at T1- and T2-weighted imaging, lobulated appearance, strong enhancement, and heterogeneous pattern with flow void artifacts-and those with atypical features. The reference standard was surgery (n = 12) or clinical outcome (n = 4). RESULTS: One posttraumatic hematoma was excluded. Most lesions were in the fingertip (n = 10), with involvement of the nail bed and/or the pulp (n = 5). Hemangiomas were classified as typical in ten cases and atypical in five. The mean size of typical lesions was larger than that of atypical lesions. The unique imaging features of atypical hemangiomas included a masslike appearance, which was either homogeneous with diffuse enhancement-suggestive of hypervascularity (n = 2)-or heterogeneous with poor enhancement (n = 3). CONCLUSION: MR imaging characteristics of finger hemangiomas can be classified as typical or atypical. Knowledge of both patterns can be helpful in the distinction of soft-tissue abnormalities at this location.
PURPOSE: To report the magnetic resonance (MR) imaging features of finger hemangiomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen patients clinically suspected of having hemangioma of the finger underwent 1.5-T MR imaging with a customized local gradient coil. The location, size, margins, signal intensity, and enhancement patterns of the lesions were noted. In accordance with the literature on MR imaging of deep hemangiomas, the authors' findings could be divided into those with typical features-that is, high signal intensity at T1- and T2-weighted imaging, lobulated appearance, strong enhancement, and heterogeneous pattern with flow void artifacts-and those with atypical features. The reference standard was surgery (n = 12) or clinical outcome (n = 4). RESULTS: One posttraumatic hematoma was excluded. Most lesions were in the fingertip (n = 10), with involvement of the nail bed and/or the pulp (n = 5). Hemangiomas were classified as typical in ten cases and atypical in five. The mean size of typical lesions was larger than that of atypical lesions. The unique imaging features of atypical hemangiomas included a masslike appearance, which was either homogeneous with diffuse enhancement-suggestive of hypervascularity (n = 2)-or heterogeneous with poor enhancement (n = 3). CONCLUSION: MR imaging characteristics of finger hemangiomas can be classified as typical or atypical. Knowledge of both patterns can be helpful in the distinction of soft-tissue abnormalities at this location.