Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Reproductive Surgery in Assisted Conception pp 183–196Cite as

Uterine Anomalies

  • Chapter

  • 961 Accesses

Abstract

There has been a re-ignited interest in the field of reproductive medicine and surgery regarding uterine anomalies, which has been as a result of several factors. Progress in non -invasive imaging (such as 3D ultrasound and MRI) and development and widespread experience in endoscopic procedures (such as therapeutic hysteroscopy) has meant that uterine anomalies have not only been more readily identified in the last couple of decades, but are also potentially more amenable to surgery. The only conundrum that arises when swift medical progress allows for these so called ‘anomalies’ to be readily identified is whether first they do indeed have a negative impact on women and their reproductive potential, and secondly – and most importantly – which, if any, treatment may be of benefit. Recent epidemiological systematic reviews and meta-analyses have attempted to shine light into these questions as to date there is truly a lack of sufficiently powered well designed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) exploring surgical versus expectant management of uterine anomalies to provide a definitive answer to this question. The development of new classification systems for uterine anomalies is a genuine step forward as it will allow for a correct and universal classification of anomalies which will help not only in the day to day clinical practice and management of these women but also in the design of appropriately consistent clinical trials throughout the world.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   159.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Letterie GS. Structural abnormalities and reproductive failure: effective techniques of diagnosis and management. New York: Blackwell Science; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hannema SE, Hughes IA. Regulation of Wolffian duct development. Horm Res. 2007;67:142–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Acien P, Acien M, Sanchez-Ferrer M. Complex malformations of the female genital tract. New types and revision of classification. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:2377–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Barakat A. Association of unilateral renal agenesis and genital anomalies. Case Rep Clin Pract Rev. 2002;3:57–60.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fedele L, Bianchi S, Agnoli B, Tozzi L, Vignali M. Urinary tract anomalies associated with unicornuate uterus. J Urol. 1996;155:847–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Acien P, Acien MI. The history of female genital tract malformation classifications and proposal of an updated system. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17:693–705.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Buttram Jr VC, Gibbons WE. Mullerian anomalies: a proposed classification. (An analysis of 144 cases). Fertil Steril. 1979;32:40–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. AFS. 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. 1988;49:944–55.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Grimbizis GF, Campo R. Congenital malformations of the female genital tract: the need for a new classification system. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:401–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Oppelt P, Renner SP, Brucker S, Strissel PL, Strick R, Oppelt PG, Doerr HG, Schott GE, Hucke J, Wallwiener D, Beckmann MW. The VCUAM (Vagina Cervix Uterus Adnex-associated Malformation) classification: a new classification for genital malformations. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:1493–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Acien P. Embryological observations on the female genital tract. Hum Reprod. 1992;7:437–45.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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. The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:2032–44.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Saravelos SH, Cocksedge KA, Li TC. Prevalence and diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies in women with reproductive failure: a critical appraisal. Hum Reprod Update. 2008;14:415–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Acien P. Reproductive performance of women with uterine malformations. Hum Reprod. 1993;8:122–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nahum GG. Uterine anomalies. How common are they, and what is their distribution among subtypes? J Reprod Med. 1998;43:877–87.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nickerson CW. Infertility and uterine contour. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1977;129:268–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Tulandi T, Arronet GH, McInnes RA. Arcuate and bicornuate uterine anomalies and infertility. Fertil Steril. 1980;34:362–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Coulam CB. Epidemiology of recurrent spontaneous abortion. Am J Reprod Immunol. 1991;26:23–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wu MH, Hsu CC, Huang KE. Detection of congenital mullerian duct anomalies using three-dimensional ultrasound. J Clin Ultrasound. 1997;25:487–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Zamora J, Thornton JG, Raine-Fenning N, Coomarasamy A. The prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies in unselected and high-risk populations: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17:761–71.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Tan A, Thornton JG, Coomarasamy A, Raine-Fenning NJ. Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies: a systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38:371–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Woelfer B, Salim R, Banerjee S, Elson J, Regan L, Jurkovic D. Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies detected by three-dimensional ultrasound screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98:1099–103.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bosteels J, Kasius J, Weyers S, Broekmans FJ, Mol BW, D’Hooghe TM. Hysteroscopy for treating subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(1):CD009461.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kowalik CR, Goddijn M, Emanuel MH, Bongers MY, Spinder T, de Kruif JH, Mol BW, Heineman MJ. Metroplasty versus expectant management for women with recurrent miscarriage and a septate uterus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(6):CD008576.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Nouri K, Ott J, Huber JC, Fischer EM, Stogbauer L, Tempfer CB. Reproductive outcome after hysteroscopic septoplasty in patients with septate uterus–a retrospective cohort study and systematic review of the literature. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2010;8:52.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Grimbizis GF, Camus M, Tarlatzis BC, Bontis JN, Devroey P. Clinical implications of uterine malformations and hysteroscopic treatment results. Hum Reprod Update. 2001;7:161–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Valle RF, Ekpo GE. Hysteroscopic metroplasty for the septate uterus: review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20:22–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Homer HA, Li TC, Cooke ID. The septate uterus: a review of management and reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:1–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Bakas P, Gregoriou O, Hassiakos D, Liapis A, Creatsas M, Konidaris S. Hysteroscopic resection of uterine septum and reproductive outcome in women with unexplained infertility. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2012;73:321–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mollo A, De Franciscis P, Colacurci N, Cobellis L, Perino A, Venezia R, Alviggi C, De Placido G. Hysteroscopic resection of the septum improves the pregnancy rate of women with unexplained infertility: a prospective controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:2628–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Pai HD, Kundnani MT, Palshetkar NP, Pai RD, Saxena N. Reproductive performance after hysteroscopic metroplasty in women with primary infertility and septate uterus. J Gynecol Endosc Surg. 2009;1:17–20.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Tonguc EA, Var T, Batioglu S. Hysteroscopic metroplasty in patients with a uterine septum and otherwise unexplained infertility. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011;113:128–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Christiansen OB, Andersen AMN, Bosch E, Daya S, Delves PJ, Hviid TV, Kutteh WH, Laird SM, Li TC, van der Ven K. Evidence-based investigations and treatments of recurrent pregnancy loss. Fertil Steril. 2005;83:821–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Strassmann EO. Fertility and unification of double uterus. Fertil Steril. 1966;17:165–76.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Whittaker MD, Garry R. Modern management of congenital abnormalities of the uterus. Curr Obstet Gynaecol. 1995;5:41–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sinha R, Mahajan C, Hegde A, Shukla A. Laparoscopic metroplasty for bicornuate uterus. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2006;13:70–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Alborzi S, Asadi N, Zolghadri J, Alborzi M. Laparoscopic metroplasty in bicornuate and didelphic uteri. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:352–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Candiani GB, Fedele L, Parazzini F, Zamberletti D. Reproductive prognosis after abdominal metroplasty in bicornuate or septate uterus: a life table analysis. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990;97:613–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Khalil AM, Azar GB, Hannoun AB, Sawaya JT, Abu-Musa AA, Karam KS. Reproductive outcome following abdominal metroplasty. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1995;49:157–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Rechberger T, Monist M, Bartuzi A. Clinical effectiveness of Strassman operation in the treatment of bicornuate uterus. Ginekol Pol. 2009;80:88–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Lolis DE, Paschopoulos M, Makrydimas G, Zikopoulos K, Sotiriadis A, Paraskevaidis E. Reproductive outcome after strassman metroplasty in women with a bicornuate uterus. J Reprod Med. 2005;50:297–301.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Ayhan A, Yucel I, Tuncer ZS, Kisnisci HA. Reproductive performance after conventional metroplasty: an evaluation of 102 cases. Fertil Steril. 1992;57:1194–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Papp Z, Mezei G, Gavai M, Hupuczi P, Urbancsek J. Reproductive performance after transabdominal metroplasty: a review of 157 consecutive cases. J Reprod Med. 2006;51:544–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kaufman RH, Binder GL, Gray Jr PM, Adam E. Upper genital tract changes associated with exposure in utero to diethylstilbestrol. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1977;128:51–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Berger MJ, Goldstein DP. Impaired reproductive performance in DES-exposed women. Obstet Gynecol. 1980;55:25–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Fernandez H, Garbin O, Castaigne V, Gervaise A, Levaillant JM. Surgical approach to and reproductive outcome after surgical correction of a T-shaped uterus. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1730–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Barranger E, Gervaise A, Doumerc S, Fernandez H. Reproductive performance after hysteroscopic metroplasty in the hypoplastic uterus: a study of 29 cases. BJOG. 2002;109:1331–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Garbin O, Ohl J, Bettahar-Lebugle K, Dellenbach P. Hysteroscopic metroplasty in diethylstilboestrol-exposed and hypoplastic uterus: a report on 24 cases. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:2751–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Katz Z, Ben-Arie A, Lurie S, Manor M, Insler V. Beneficial effect of hysteroscopic metroplasty on the reproductive outcome in a ‘T-shaped’ uterus. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 1996;41:41–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Nagel TC, Malo JW. Hysteroscopic metroplasty in the diethylstilbestrol-exposed uterus and similar nonfusion anomalies: effects on subsequent reproductive performance; a preliminary report. Fertil Steril. 1993;59:502–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Letterie GS. Management of congenital uterine abnormalities. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;23:40–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Lennox G, Pantazi S, Keunen J, Van Mieghem T, Allen L. Minimally invasive surgical management of a second trimester pregnancy in a rudimentary uterine horn. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2013;35:468–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Munck DF, Markauskas A, Lamont RF, Jorgensen JS. Pregnancy in a non-communicating rudimentary uterine horn in an obese woman. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92:869.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Hirose I, Harada K, Kuroda R, Ishii Y, Nakajima M, Kamei Y, Takazawa Y, Yoshida K. An autopsy report on a ruptured rudimentary horn (uterine anomaly) with ectopic pregnancy. Forensic Sci Int. 2013;224:e4–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Brucker SY, Gegusch M, Zubke W, Rall K, Gauwerky JF, Wallwiener D. Neovagina creation in vaginal agenesis: development of a new laparoscopic Vecchietti-based procedure and optimized instruments in a prospective comparative interventional study in 101 patients. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:1940–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Creatsas G, Deligeoroglou E, Christopoulos P. Creation of a neovagina after Creatsas modification of Williams vaginoplasty for the treatment of 200 patients with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1848–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Pabuçcu, Gomel V. Reproductive outcome after hysteroscopic metroplasty in women with septate uterus and otherwise unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(6):1675–8.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Ayhan A, Yücel I, Tuncer ZS, Kişnişçi HA. Reproductive performance after conventional metroplasty: an evaluation of 102 cases. Fertil Steril. 1992;57(6):1194–6.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Artificial Reproductive Technology Unit, Prince of Wales Hospital, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

    Sotirios H. Saravelos MBBS

Authors
  1. Sotirios H. Saravelos MBBS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sotirios H. Saravelos MBBS .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Reproductive Medicine and Surgery, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, United Kingdom

    Mostafa Metwally

  2. Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

    Tin-Chiu Li

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Saravelos, S.H. (2015). Uterine Anomalies. In: Metwally, M., Li, TC. (eds) Reproductive Surgery in Assisted Conception. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4953-8_18

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4953-8_18

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-4952-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-4953-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation