Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pregnancy Outcome in Women with Uterine Anomalies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Female Genital Tract Congenital Malformations

Abstract

Aims: To review the impact of female genital malformations as well as their different types on pregnancy outcome. Methods: Pertinent studies were identified through a computer Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library search. Uterine defects were grouped into five classes, according to the new ESHRE/ESGE Classification of Female Genital Malformations. Only data on untreated congenital uterine anomalies, apart for metroplasty in bicornuate uterus, were taken into account in accordance to the objective of the issue. Clinical implications: Those uterine malformations that cannot be surgically treated (Hemi-uterus and Bicorporeal uterus with double cervix – AFS Unicornuate and Didelphys uteri) are associated with poor reproductive performances, increased abortion rates and lower live birth rates, eventhough a successful pregnancy is possible. On the opposite, septate uterus, hypoplastic uterus (AFS “T-shaped” ) and partial unification defects (AFS bicornuate uterus) are associated to the worst reproductive outcomes when untreated and to the higher reproductive performances after surgery. Open issue: The hypoplastic uterus (T-shaped/Uterus Infantilis) is an old/new congenital pathology to be taken into account, both for its increasing incidence and damage of reproductive outcome and for the promising results of hysteroscopic surgery in those patients.

Further researches concerning new clinical and diagnostic parameters are also advisable, in order to individuate those subpopulations of patients with uterine congenital anomalies, i.e. women with septate uterus, that will benefit of surgical procedure.

Finally, focusing again on septate uterus, further controlled trials are needed in order to get to a definite conclusion on the issue of the length of the septum into the uterine cavity and the impairment of pregnancy.

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

Access this chapter

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 109.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Grimbizis GF, Camus M, Tarlatzis BC, Bontis JN, Devroey P. Clinical implications of uterine malformations and hysteroscopic treatment results. Hum Reprod Update. 2001;7(1):161–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fernandez H, Garbin O, Castaigne V, Gervaise A, Levaillant JM. Surgical approach to and reproductive out come after surgical correction of a T-shaped uterus. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(7):1730–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Zamora J, Thornton JG, Reine-Fenning N, Coomarasamy A. The prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies in unselected and high-risk populations: a systematic review. Hum Reprod. 2011;17(6):761–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Caserta D, Mallozzi M, Meldolesi C, Bianchi P, Moscarini M. Pregnancy in a unicornuate uterus: a case report. J Med Case Rep. 2014;8(1):130.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Reichman D, Laufer MR, Robinson BK. Pregnancy outcome in unicornuate uteri: a review. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(5):1886–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Raga F, Bauset C, Remohi J, Bonilla-Musoles F, Simon C, Pellicer A. Reproductive impact of congenital mullerian anomalies. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(10):2277–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lavergne N, Aristizabal J, Zarka V, Erny R, Hedon B. Uterine anomalies and in-vitro fertilization: what are the results? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1996;68:29–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fedele L, Zamberletti D, Vercellini P, Dorta M, Candiani GB. Reproductive performance of women with unicornuate uterus. Fertil Steril. 1987;47(3):416–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Moutos D, Damewood M, Schlaff W, Rock J. A comparison of the reproductive outcome between women with unicornuate uterus and women with didelphic uterus. Fertil Steril. 1992;58:88–93.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Maneschi M, Maneschi F, Fucà G. Reproductive impairment of women with unicornuate uterus. Acta Eur Fertil. 1988;19(5):273–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Akar ME, Bayar D, Yildiz S, Ozel M, Yilmaz Z. Reproductive outcome of women with unicornuate uterus. Aust N Z Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;45(2):148–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Proctor J, Haney AF. Recurrent first trimester pregnancy loss is associated with uterine septum but not with bicornuate uterus. Fertil Steril. 2003;|80(5):1212–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Maneschi F, Marana R, Muzii L, Mancuso S. Reproductive performance in women with bicornute uterus. Acta Eur Fertil. 1993;24(3):117–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Acien P. Reproductive performance of women with uterine malformations. Hum Reprod. 1993;8(1):122–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 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(4):371–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Shuiqing M, Xuming B, Jinghe L. Pregnancy and its outcome in women with malformed uterus. Chin Med Sci J. 2002;17(4):242–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Zlopasa G, Skrablin S, Kalafatic D, Banovic V, Lesin J. Uterine anomalies and pregnancy outcome following resectoscope metroplasty. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2007;98:129–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. 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 

  20. Heinonen PK. Clinical implications of the didelphic uterus: long-term follow-up of 49 cases. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2000;91(2):183–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Maneschi M, Maneschi F, Parlato M, Fucà G, Incandela S. Reproductive performance in women with uterus didelphys. Acta Eur Fertil. 1989;20(3):121–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rechberger T, Monist M, Bartuzi A. Clinical effectiveness of Strassman operation in the treatment of bicornuate uterus. Ginekol Pol. 2009;80(2):88–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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(5):297–301.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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(7):544–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Heinonen PK, Saarikoski S, Pystynen P. Reproductive performance of women with uterine anomalies. An evaluation of 182 cases. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1982;61(2):157–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ashton D, Amin HK, Richart RM, Neuswirth RS. The incidence of asymptomatic uterine anomalies in women undergoing transcervicale sterilization. Obstet Gynecol. 1988;72:28–30.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ludmir J, Samuel P, Brooks S, Mennuti MT. Pregnancy outcome of patients with uncorrected uterine anomalies managed in a high-risk obstetrics setting. Obstet Gynecol. 1990;75(6):906–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 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(6):1099–103.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Homer H, Li TC, Cooke I. The septate uterus: a review of management and reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(1):1–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Gergolet M, Campo R, Verdenik I, Suster NK, Gordts S, Gianaroli L. No clinical relevance of the height of fundal indentation in subseptate or arcuate uterus: a prospective study. Reprod BioMed Online. 2012;24:576–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Saravelos S, Cocksedge KA, Li TC. The pattern of pregnancy loss in women with congenital uterine anomalies and recurrent miscarriage. Reprod BioMed Online. 2010;20:416–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Hollett-Caines J, Vilos G, Abu-Rafea B, Ahmad R. Fertility and pregnancy outcomes following hysteroscopic septum division. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2006;28(2):156–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Pace S, Cipriano L, Pace G, Catania R, Montanino G. Septate uterus: reproductive outcome after hysteroscopic metroplasty. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2006;33:110–2.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Venturoli S, Colombo FM, Vianello F, Seracchioli R, Possati G, Paradisi R. A study of hysteroscopic metroplasty in 141 women with a septate uterus. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2002;266(3):157–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kupesic S, Kuriak A. Septate uterus: detection and prediction of obstetrical complications by different forms of ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med. 1998;17:631–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Valle RF, Ekpo GE. Hysteroscopic metroplasty for the septate uterus: review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(1):22–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Tomazevic T, Ban-Frangez H, Virant-Klun I, Verdenik I, Pozlep B, Vrtacnik-Bokal E. Septate, subseptate and arcuate uterus decrease pregnancy and live birth rates in IVF/ICSI. Reprod BioMed Online. 2010;21:700–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Paradisi R, Barzanti R, Natali F, Guerrini M, Battaglia C, Seracchioli R, Venturoli S. Hysteroscopic metroplasty: reproductive outcome in relation to septum size. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014;289(3):671–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Nouri K, Ott J, Huber J, Fischer EM, Stogbauer L, Tempfer CB. Reproductive outcome after hysteroscopic seproplasty 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 

  41. Ozgur K, Isikoglu M, Donmez L, Oehninger S. Is hysteroscopic correction of an incomplete uterine septum justified prior to IVF? Reprod BioMed Online. 2007;14(3):335–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Garbin O, Ohl J, Bettar-Lebugle K, Dellenbach P. Hysteroscopic metroplasty in diethylstilboestrol-exposed and hypoplastic uterus: a report on 24 cases. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(10):2751–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Pons JC, Goujard J, Derbanne C, Tournaire M. Devenir des grossesses des patientes exposèes au in utero au diethylbestrol. Enquete du college national des gynecologues et obstetriciens francais. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod. 1988;17:307–16.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Kaufman RH, Binder GL, Gray PM. Upper genital tract changes associated with exposure in utero to diethylstilbestrol. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1977;228:51–9.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kaufman RH, Adam E, Hatch EE, Noller K, Herbst AL, Palmer JR, Hoover RN. Continued follow-up of pregnancy outcomes in diethylstilbestrol-exposed offspring. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;96(4):483–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Cabeau A. Malformations uterines chez les filles exposées au distilbène durant leur vie embryonnaire, consequence sur leur fecondité. Contracept Fertil Sex. 1982;10:477–87.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Kaufman RH, Adam E, Noller K. Upper genital tract changes associated with exposure in utero to diethylstilbestrol. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1986;154:1312–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 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(12):1331–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. March CM, Israel R. Hysteroscopic management of recurrent abortion caused by septate uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1987;156(4):834–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Perino A, Mencaglia L, Hamou J, Cittadini E. Hysteroscopy for metroplasty of uterine septa: report of 24 cases. Fertil Steril. 1987;48(2):321–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Daly DC, Mayer D, Soto-Albors C. Hysteroscopic metroplasty: six years’ experience. Obstet Gynecol. 1989;73(2):201–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Cararach M, Penella J, Ubeda A, Labastida R. Hysteroscopic incision of the septate uterus: scissors versus resectoscope. Human Reprod. 1994;9(1):87–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Pabuccu R, Atay V, Urman B, Ergun A, Orhon E. Hysteroscopic treatment of septate uterus. Gynecol Endosc. 1995;4:213–5.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Valle RF. Hysteroscopic treatment of partial and complete uterine septum. Int J Fertil Menopausal Stud. 1996;41(3):310–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Grimbizis G, Camus M, Clasen K,Tournaye H, De Munck L, Devroey P. Hysteroscopic septum resection in patients with recurrent abortions or infertility. Human Reprod. 1998;13(5):1188–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Recommended Non-cited References

  1. Palmer JR, Hatch EE, Rao RS, Kaufman RH, Herbst AL, Noller KL, Titus-Ernstoff L, Hoover RN. Infertility among women exposed prenatally to diethylstilbestrol. Am J Epidemiol. 2001;154(4):316–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Acien P, Acien M, Sanchez-Ferrer M. Complex malformations of the female genital tract. New types and the revision of classification. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(10):2377–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Giacomucci E, Bellavia E, Sandri F, Farina A, Scagliarini G. Term delivery rate after hysteroscopic metroplasty in patients with recurrent spontaneous abortion and T-shaped, Arcuate and septate uterus. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2011;71(3):183–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hua M, Odibo AO, Longman RE, Macones GA, Roehl KA, Cahill AG. Congenital uterine anomalies and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(6):558.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Grimbizis GF, Gordts S, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Brucker S, De Angelis C, Gergolet M, Tanos V, Campo R, Li TC, Gianaroli M. The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital congenital anomalies. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:2032–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Urological Sciences, University of Rome Sapienza – S. Andrea Hospital, Rome, Italy

    Carlo De Angelis MD & Donatella Caserta MD, PhD

Authors
  1. Carlo De Angelis MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Donatella Caserta MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Medical School, Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Grigoris F. Grimbizis

  2. Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Genk Institute for Fertility Technology, Leuven, Belgium

    Rudi Campo

  3. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Medical School, Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Basil C. Tarlatzis

  4. Leuven Institute for Fertility & Embryology, Leuven, Belgium

    Stephan Gordts

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

De Angelis, C., Caserta, D. (2015). Pregnancy Outcome in Women with Uterine Anomalies. In: Grimbizis, G., Campo, R., Tarlatzis, B., Gordts, S. (eds) Female Genital Tract Congenital Malformations. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5146-3_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5146-3_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-5145-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-5146-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation