Advertisement

Congenital Uterine Anomalies

  • Patricia Carrascosa
  • Carlos Capuñay
  • Carlos E. Sueldo
  • Juan Mariano Baronio
Chapter

Abstract

The uterine anomalies are generated by a defect in the fusion or reabsorption of the Müller conducts, in whatever stage of the embryonary development.

Keywords

Spontaneous Abortion Uterine Horn Premature Delivery Virtual View Endometrial Cavity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Acien P. Incidence of Mullerian defects in fertile and infertile women. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:1372–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ashton D, Amin HK, Richart RM, et al. The incidence of symptomatic uterine anomalies in women undergoing transcervical tubal sterilization. Obstet Gynecol. 1988;72:28–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Homer HA, Li TC, Cooke ID. The septate uterus: a review of management and reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:1–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Raga F, Bauset C, Remohi J, et al. Reproductive impact of congenital Mullerian anomalies. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:2277–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Saleem SN. MR imaging diagnosis of uterovaginal anomalies: current state of the art. Radiographics. 2003;23:e13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Simon C, Martinez L, Pardo F, et al. Mullerian defects in women with normal reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril. 1991;56:1192–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Troiano RN, McCarthy SM. Mullerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues. Radiology. 2004;233:19–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clifford K, Rai R, Watson H, et al. An informative protocol for the investigation of recurrent miscarriage: preliminary experience of 500 consecutive cases. Hum Reprod. 1994;9:1328–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nahum GG. Uterine anomalies. How common are they, and what is their distribution among subtypes? J Reprod Med. 1998;43:877–87.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Raziel A, Arieli S, Bukovsky I, et al. Investigation of the uterine cavity in recurrent aborters. Fertil Steril. 1994;62:1080–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hassan MA, Lavery SA, Trew GH. Congenital uterine anomalies and their impact on fertility. Womens Health (Lond Engl). 2010;6(3):443–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhang Y, Zhao YY, Qiao J. Obstetric outcome of women with uterine anomalies in China. Chin Med J (Engl). 2010;123(4):418–22.Google Scholar
  13. 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(5):415–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Oystragh P. Pregnancy in uterus didelphys. Med J Aust. 1968;2(9):400–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lewis BV, Brant HA. Obstetric and gynecologic complications associated with müllerian duct abnormalities. Obstet Gynecol. 1966;28(3):315–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lewis AD, Levine D. Pregnancy complications in women with uterine duplication abnormalities. Ultrasound Q. 2010;26(4):193–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guadagno L, Pardini C, Floriddia G, et al. On a case of bilateral total gonado-mullerian agenesis associated with left renal agenesis and ectopy and dysmorphism of the right kidney. Riv Crit Clin Med. 1968;68(4):387–403.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ceci GP, Scapicchi G. Unilateral Wolff-Mullerian agenesis associated with homolateral gonadal agenesis. Atti Accad Fisiocrit Siena Med Fis. 1967;16(1):648–56.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Talebian Yazdi A, De Smet K, Ernst C, et al. Uterus didelphys with obstructed hemivagina and renal agenesis: MRI findings. JBR-BTR. 2011;94(1):16–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Takagi H, Matsunami K, Imai A. Uterovaginal duplication with blind hemivagina and ipsilateral renal agenesis: review of unusual presentation. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;30(4):350–3. Review.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Acién P, Acién M. Unilateral renal agenesis and female genital tract pathologies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010;89(11):1424–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Zamora J, et al. The prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies in unselected and high-risk populations: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(6):761–71.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sugiura-Ogasawara M, Ozaki Y, Katano K, et al. Uterine anomaly and recurrent pregnancy loss. Semin Reprod Med. 2011;29(6):514–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rock JA, Schlaff WD. The obstetric consequences of uterovaginal anomalies. Fertil Steril. 1985;43:681–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chosson J. Attempt at embryologic classification of malformations of Mullerian origin of the female genital system. Rev Fr Gynecol Obstet. 1967;62(12):695–702.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    The American Fertility Society. 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
  27. 27.
    Buttram Jr VC, Gibbons WE. Mullerian anomalies: a proposed classification. (An analysis of 144 cases). Fertil Steril. 1979;32:40–6.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ubeda B, Paraira M, Alert E, et al. Hysterosalpingography: spectrum of normal variants and nonpathological findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177(1):131–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Byrne J, Nussbaum-Blask A, Taylor WS, et al. Prevalence of müllerian duct anomalies detected at ultrasound. Am J Med Genet. 2000;94:9–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Benjaminov O, Atri M. Sonography of the abnormal fallopian tube. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183(3):737–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bermejo C, Ten Martínez P, Cantarero R, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35(5):593–601.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Marcal L, Nothaft MA, Coelho F, et al. Mullerian duct anomalies: MR imaging. Abdom Imaging. 2011;36(6):756–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Winter L, Glücker T, Steimann S, et al. Feasibility of dynamic MR-hysterosalpingography for the diagnostic work-up of infertile women. Acta Radiol. 2010;51(6):693–701.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Carrascosa P, Sangster G, Capuñay C, et al. Histerosalpingografía virtual, experiencia inicial. 21st International Congress of Radiology 2000. Abstract.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Carrascosa P, Capuñay C, Mariano B, et al. Virtual hysteroscopy by multidetector computed tomography. Abdom Imaging. 2008;33(4):381–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Carrascosa P, Capuñay C, Baronio M, et al. 64- Row multidetector CT virtual hysterosalpingography. Abdom Imaging. 2009;34:121–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Carrascosa P, Capuñay C, Vallejos J, et al. Virtual hysterosalpingography: a new multidetector CT technique for evaluating the female reproductive system. Radiographics. 2010;30:643–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Carrascosa P, Capuñay C, Vallejos J, et al. Virtual hysterosalpingography: experience with over 1000 consecutive patients. Abdom Imaging. 2011;36(1):1–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Baronio M, Carrascosa P, Capuñay C, et al. Diagnostic performance of CT virtual hysteroscopy in 69 consecutive patients. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(Supplement S77). Abstract.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Capuñay C, Baronio M, Carrascosa P, et al. CT virtual hysterosalpingography in the evaluation of uterine myomas. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(Supplement S211). Abstract.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Carrascosa P, Baronio JM, Borghi M, et al. Histerosalpingoscopía virtual. Una técnica novedosa y no invasiva para diagnosticar patología intrauterina. Reproducción. 2006;21:19–26.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricia Carrascosa
    • 1
  • Carlos Capuñay
    • 1
  • Carlos E. Sueldo
    • 2
  • Juan Mariano Baronio
    • 3
  1. 1.Diagnóstico MaipúBuenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.University of CaliforniaSan FranciscoUSA
  3. 3.CEGYRBuenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations