Abstract
Septate uterus is a common benign uterine congenital anomaly with an estimated prevalence of ~2 % in the general population, ~3 % in infertile women and >5 % in patients with recurrent pregnancy losses. It is an absorption defect and according to the ESHRE/ESGE classification system, it is classified into two sub-classes, the partial (Class U2a) and the complete (Class U2b) one. An interesting clinically sub-category is the co-called bicorporeal septate uterus (Class U3c) as a result of a combined fusion and absorption defect. The anatomical statuses of the cervix and of the vagina further subdivide the main classes to various anatomical variants.
Septate uterus is associated with poor pregnancy outcome in terms of increased first and second trimester abortions, higher preterm delivery rates, impaired fetal growth and perinatal mortality. It seems that it is also associated with lower conception rates, a topic that still needs further investigation. Surgical correction of septate uterus is, nowadays, easy and simple with the use of operative hysteroscope and/or resectoscope and it is aiming in the unification of the uterine cavity by cutting or resecting the septum. It seems that septum incision is associated with an improvement in the evolution of pregnancy by decreasing the probability of first and second trimester pregnancy losses as well as of preterm delivery rates. Although there is some indirect evidence that it is also associated with higher conception rates in infertile patients, the issue is still open for further investigation. Thus, based on the current best available evidence, it seems that septum incision is indicated in patients with a history of infertility and poor pregnancy outcome. It is still not yet elucidated if it could be also applied as a prophylactic procedure in asymptomatic women.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Grimbizis GF, Camus M, Tarlatzis BC, Bontis JN, Devroey P. Clinical implications of uterine malformations and hysteroscopic treatment results. Hum Reprod Update. 2001;7:161–4.
Saravelos SH, Cocksedge KA, Li T-C. Prevalence and diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies in women with reproductive failure: a critical appraisal. Hum Reprod Update. 2008;14:415–9.
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.
Buttram VC, Gibbons WE. Mullerian anomalies: a proposed classification (an analysis of 144 cases). Fertil Steril. 1979;32:40–6.
American Fertility Society. The AFS classification of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies. Mullerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril. 1988;149:944–55.
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.
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.
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.
Strawbrigde LC, Crough NS, Cutner AS, Creighton SM. Obstructive Mullerian anomalies and modern laparoscopic management. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2007;20:195–200.
Gubbini G, Di Spiezio SA, Nascetti D, Marra E, Spinelli M, Greco E, Casadio P, Nappi C. New outpatient subclassification system for American Fertility Society classes V and VI uterine anomalies. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009;16:554–61.
Rock JA, Roberts CP, Jones HW. Congenital anomalies of the uterine cervix: lessons from 30 cases managed clinically by a common protocol. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1858–63.
Grimbizis GF, Campo R. Congenital malformations of the female genital tract: the need for a new classification system. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:401–7.
Grimbizis GF, Campo R, on behalf of the SC of the CONUTA ESHRE/ESGE working group: Gordts G, Brucker S, Gergolet M, Tanos V, Li T-C, De Angelis C, Di Spiezio SA. Clinical approach for the classification of congenital uterine malformations. Gynecol Surg. 2012;9:119–29.
Grimbizis GF, Gordts G, Di Spiezio SA, Brucker S, De Angelis C, Gergolet M, Li T-C, Tanos V, Brölmann H, Gianaroli L, Campo R. The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital malformations. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:2032–44.
Grimbizis GF, Gordts G, Di Spiezio SA, Brucker S, De Angelis C, Gergolet M, Li T-C, Tanos V, Brölmann H, Gianaroli L, Campo R. The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital malformations. Gynecol Surg. 2013;10:199–212.
Acien P. Reproductive performance of women with uterine malformations. Hum Reprod. 1993;8:122–6.
Heinonen KP, Saarikoski S, Postynen P. Reproductive performance of women with uterine anomalies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1982;61:157–62.
Raga F, Bauset C, Remohi J, Bonilla-Musoles F, Simon C, Pellicer A. Reproductive impact of congenital Mullerian anomalies. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:2277–81.
Heinonen KP. Complete septate uterus with longitudinal vaginal septum. Fertil Steril. 2006;85:700–5.
Chan YY, Jayarpakasan 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.
Venetis CA, Papadopoulos SP, Campo R, Gordts S, Tarlatzis BC, Grimbizis GF. Clinical implications of congenital uterine anomalies: a meta-analysis of comparative studies. RBM Online, 2014;29:665–683.
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.
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.
Baird DT, Collins J, Egozcue J, ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. Fertility and ageing. Hum Reprod Update. 2005;11(3):261–76.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer-Verlag London
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Grimbizis, G.F. (2015). Uterine Septum. In: Metwally, M., Li, TC. (eds) Reproductive Surgery in Assisted Conception. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4953-8_20
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4953-8_20
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-4952-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-4953-8
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)