Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 298, Issue 4, pp 845–850 | Cite as

ESHRE–ESGE versus ASRM classification in the diagnosis of septate uterus: a retrospective study

  • Yan Ouyang
  • Yan Yi
  • Fei Gong
  • Ge Lin
  • Xihong LiEmail author
Images in Obstetrics and Gynecology



The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology–European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESHRE–ESGE) system is designed mainly for clinical orientation; its overdiagnosis of septate uteri was confirmed in a general population in comparison to the American Society of Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) supplemental classification proposed by Ludwin. However, the agreement among septate uterus recognition using the ESHRE–ESGE and the supplemental ASRM classifications and the rate of overdiagnosis of septate uterus by ESHRE-ESGE in infertile women remain unclear.


We conducted a retrospective study of 53,540 infertile patients in our reproductive centre from June 2013 to December 2016, to compare septate uterus recognition using three systems. The data were analysed by the ESHRE–ESGE system, the ASRM by Salim and the ASRM by Ludwin separately. The concordance of diagnoses of septate uteri using these three systems was compared.


ESHRE–ESGE classification significantly increased the frequency of septate uteri (11.31%, 6056 vs. 7.20%, 3854 vs. 3.80%, 2034). Good agreement was observed between the ESHRE-ESGE and the ASRM by Salim (k = 0.686, p < 0.001) and between the ASRM by Salim and that by Ludwin (k = 0.671, p < 0.001), while moderate agreement was found between the ESHRE–ESGE and ASRM by Ludwin systems (k = 0.444, p < 0.001). These results suggest that Ludwin’s criteria are the strictest, while the ESHRE–ESGE system is much more relaxed for septate uterus diagnosis.


A risk of overtreatment may also exist in infertile patients when using the ESHRE–ESGE system. Therefore, the ESHRE–ESGE system should be used with caution when guiding hysteroscopic metroplasty in infertile patients.


Septate uterus Infertile Classification system Overdiagnosis Overtreatment 



American Fertility Society


American Society of Reproductive Medicine


Vagina, cervix, uterus, adnex-associated malformations


European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology–European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy




Transvaginal sonography


Standard deviation


Body mass index



The authors thank Qingqing Wu and Kailan Xiong for their assistance in collecting and sorting clinical data.

Availability of data and materials

The data sets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

Authors’ Contributions

YO and YY collected relevant clinical data. YO conducted statistical analyses and drafted the manuscript. FG and G L helped to collect relevant clinical data and have been involved in revising the manuscript. XL conceived of the study, and participated in drafting this manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.


This work was funded by the Science and technology project of Health and Family Planning Commission of Hunan Province (No. C20180898) and the CITIC-Xiangya Research Fund (No. KYXM-201703).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.


The authors report no financial or commercial conflicts of interest.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This retrospective study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Reproductive and Genetic Hospital of Citic-Xiangya.


  1. 1.
    Devi Wold AS, Pham N, Arici A (2006) Anatomic factors in recurrent pregnancy loss. Semin Reprod Med 24:25–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Acien P, Acien M (2016) The presentation and management of complex female genital malformations. Hum Reprod Update 22:48–69CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Raga F, Bauset C, Remohi J, Bonilla-Musoles F, Simon C, Pellicer A (1997) Reproductive impact of congenital Mullerian anomalies. Hum Reprod 12:2277–2281CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Golan A, Schneider D, Avrech O, Raziel A, Bukovsky I, Caspi E (1992) Hysteroscopic findings after missed abortion. Fertil Steril 58:508–510CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grimbizis GF, Camus M, Tarlatzis BC, Bontis JN, Devroey P (2001) Clinical implications of uterine malformations and hysteroscopic treatment results. Hum Reprod Update 7:161–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    The American Fertility Society (1988) The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, mullerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril 49:944–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Acien P, Acien M, Sanchez-Ferrer M (2004) Complex malformations of the female genital tract. New types and revision of classification. Hum Reprod 19:2377–2384CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Acien P, Acien MI (2011) The history of female genital tract malformation classifications and proposal of an updated system. Hum Reprod Update 17:693–705CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Oppelt P, Renner SP, Brucker S, Strissel PL, Strick R, Oppelt PG, Doerr HG, Schott GE, Hucke J, Wallwiener D, Beckmann MW (2005) The VCUAM (Vagina Cervix Uterus Adnex-associated Malformation) classification: a new classification for genital malformations. Fertil Steril 84:1493–1497CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grimbizis GF, Gordts S, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Brucker S, De Angelis C, Gergolet M, Li TC, Tanos V, Brolmann H, Gianaroli L, Campo R (2013) The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Hum Reprod 28:2032–2044CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smit JG, Overdijkink S, Mol BW, Kasius JC, Torrance HL, Eijkemans MJ, Bongers M, Emanuel MH, Vleugels M, Broekmans FJ (2015) The impact of diagnostic criteria on the reproducibility of the hysteroscopic diagnosis of the septate uterus: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 30:1323–1330CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Henmi H, Soyama H, Nagasawa K, Ikeda U (2015) Safe and effective surgery for septate uterus: 21 cases treated by hysteroscopic metroplasty with hysterography and custom-made intra-uterine silicone plate. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 22:S180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Salim R, Woelfer B, Backos M, Regan L, Jurkovic D (2003) Reproducibility of three-dimensional ultrasound diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 21:578–582CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bermejo C, Ten Martinez P, Cantarero R, Diaz D, Perez Pedregosa J, Barron E, Labrador E, Ruiz Lopez L (2010) Three-dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Mullerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 35:593–601CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ludwin A, Pitynski K, Ludwin I, Banas T, Knafel A (2013) Two- and three-dimensional ultrasonography and sonohysterography versus hysteroscopy with laparoscopy in the differential diagnosis of septate, bicornuate, and arcuate uteri. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 20:90–99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ludwin A, Ludwin I, Pitynski K, Banas T, Jach R (2013) Differentiating between a double cervix or cervical duplication and a complete septate uterus with longitudinal vaginal septum. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 52:308–310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ludwin A, Ludwin I, Pitynski K, Jach R, Banas T (2014) Are the ESHRE/ESGE criteria of female genital anomalies for diagnosis of septate uterus appropriate? Hum Reprod 29:867–868CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ludwin A, Ludwin I, Pitynski K, Banas T, Jach R (2014) Role of morphologic characteristics of the uterine septum in the prediction and prevention of abnormal healing outcomes after hysteroscopic metroplasty. Hum Reprod 29:1420–1431CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ludwin A, Ludwin I (2015) Diagnostic rate and accuracy of the ESHRE-ESGE classification for septate uterus and other common uterine malformations: why do we not see that the Emperor is naked? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 46:634–636CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ludwin A, Ludwin I (2015) Comparison of the ESHRE-ESGE and ASRM classifications of Mullerian duct anomalies in everyday practice. Hum Reprod 30:569–580CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grimbizis GF, Gordts S, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Brucker SY, De Angelis C, Gergolet M, Li TC, Tanos V, Brolmann HH, Gianaroli L, Campo R (2014) Reply: are the ESHRE/ESGE criteria of female genital anomalies for diagnosis of septate uterus appropriate? Hum Reprod 29:868–869CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine: (2016) Uterine septum: a guideline. Fertil Steril 106:530–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yan Ouyang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yan Yi
    • 3
  • Fei Gong
    • 1
  • Ge Lin
    • 1
  • Xihong Li
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Reproductive and Genetic Hospital of CITIC-XiangyaChangshaPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.College of Life ScienceHunan Normal UniversityChangshaPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Graduate School of Public HealthUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations