Accurate classification of aortic dissection is essential for guiding clinical treatment and facilitating communication between radiologists and clinicians. Traditional classifications, such as the DeBakey and Stanford systems, categorize dissections according to their origin and extent, or by involvement of the ascending aorta. The Stanford classification has gained widespread use due to its clear correlation with the surgical and medical treatments available at the time. However, these traditional classifications provide limited guidance for contemporary management, particularly in the era of endovascular and hybrid surgical techniques for aortic repair. Modern classifications, such as the Type/Entry/Malperfusion (TEM) system and Type B dissection reporting standards proposed by the Society for Vascular Surgery and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (SVS/ STS), incorporate more detailed anatomic and clinical descriptors. The TEM system expands upon the Stanford classification by adding a “non-A non-B” category for arch dissections and incorporating entry tear and malperfusion descriptors. The SVS/STS classification introduces a zone-based model that defines the dissection type by the location and extent of the entry tear.Contemporary guidelines have identified several high-risk imaging features that predict poor outcomes in otherwise uncomplicated dissections. This pictorial review compares these classifications and highlights their implications for radiologic reporting, emphasizing how detailed anatomic and risk-based descriptors better align radiologic interpretations with contemporary management strategies.

INTRODUCTION: Totally implantable venous access devices (TIVADs) or ports are increasingly used in oncology settings to provide long-term, easy venous access. This study reports our experience and results with 1180 cases in Singapore. METHOD: Data from January 2019 to January 2022, obtained from a hospital-approved secure database application called the Research Electronic Data Capture registry, were reviewed and analysed retrospectively. RESULTS: A total of 1180 patients underwent TIVAD implantation with a 100% technical success rate. The mean age of the cohort was 61.9 years. The mean dwell duration was 342 days (standard deviation [SD] 223; range 3-1911). By 1 February 2022, 83% of patients were still using the TIVAD, 13.6 % underwent removal after completion of treatment, 2.1% were removed due to infection, 0.6% due to malfunction, 0.6% due to port extrusion and 0.1% at patient's request. The right internal jugular vein (IJV) was the most commonly accessed site (83.6%), followed by the left IJV (15.6%). The early post-procedure complications were pain (24.7%), bruising (9.2%), swelling (3.6%), bleeding (0.5%), fever (0.4%), itchiness (0.2%) and allergic dermatitis (0.1%). The delayed post-procedure complications were TIVAD site cellulitis (3.80%); discharge (1.10%); skin erosion with device extrusion (0.60%); malpositioned catheter (0.33%), which was successfully repositioned, catheter-related bloodstream infections (0.25%); migration of TIVAD leading to catheter dislodgement (0.25%); venous thrombosis (0.25%); fibrin sheath formation requiring stripping (0.10%) and TIVAD chamber inversion (0.10%). CONCLUSION TIVAD implantation via the jugular vein under radiological guidance provides a safe, reliable and convenient means of long-term venous access in oncology patients. By sharing our experience and acceptable outcomes from a large oncology cohort, we aim to increase the awareness and adoption of TIVAD usage in oncology patients, especially in Asia.
Humans ; Middle Aged ; Male ; Female ; Retrospective Studies ; Singapore/epidemiology* ; Aged ; Catheterization, Central Venous/instrumentation* ; Neoplasms/drug therapy* ; Catheters, Indwelling/adverse effects* ; Adult ; Jugular Veins/diagnostic imaging* ; Aged, 80 and over ; Catheter-Related Infections/epidemiology* ; Central Venous Catheters/adverse effects*

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to assess safety, local tumour progression (LTP) and risk factors for LTP after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of liver tumours in a single centre. METHODS: All consecutive patients treated with RFA for liver tumours between January 2009 and October 2012 were included. Previously treated lesions that progressed were excluded. Using electronic medical records, the following data was captured: patient demographics, pre-procedural laboratory results, Child-Pugh status, tumour characteristics, development of tumoral seeding, RFA complications and LTP. Possible risk factors for LTP were identified using Cox regression. RESULTS: In total, 555 liver tumours were treated in 337 patients. 483 (87.0%) hepatocellular carcinomas, 52 (9.4%) colorectal metastases and 20 (3.6%) other tumour types were treated. Mean tumour size was 2.1 ± 1.1 (range 0.4-6.8) cm. Mean follow-up duration was 387 days. 416 (75.0%) lesions had no LTP at the last imaging. 70 (12.6%) patients had minor complications requiring observation, while 7 (1.3%) patients had significant complications requiring prolonged hospitalisation or further interventions. Only one case of tumour seeding was detected. Using multivariate Cox regression, the following factors were statistically significant in predicting LTP: hilar location (relative ratio [RR] 3.988), colorectal metastases (RR 2.075), size (RR 1.290) and younger age (RR 0.982). CONCLUSION RFA of liver tumours is safe and effective, with a low significant complication rate of 1.3%. Hilar lesions are most prone to LTP, followed by lesions that were larger in size and colorectal metastases. 75.0% of patients showed no LTP at the last follow-up.