Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-31T20:01:00.531Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - Surgical correction of vaginal and other anomalies

from Part II - Management of developmental abnormalities of the genital tract

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2010

Jane MacDougall
Affiliation:
Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK
Sarah Creighton
Affiliation:
Elizabeth Garrett Anderson and Obstetric Hospital, University College Hospitals, London, UK
Adam H. Balen
Affiliation:
Leeds Teaching Hospitals, University Trust
Sarah M. Creighton
Affiliation:
University College London Hospitals
Melanie C. Davies
Affiliation:
University College London
Jane MacDougall
Affiliation:
Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge
Richard Stanhope
Affiliation:
Great Ormond Street Hospital
Get access

Summary

Historical perspective

The surgical correction of vaginal anomalies dates from the early 1800s. Surgery on the clitoris is a more recent practice and has evolved over the last 50 years or so. The existence of uterine anomalies was first noted in 1681 by Dionis, who described simultaneous pregnancies in each side of a hemi-uterus (Letterie, 1998). Their impact on reproduction was recognized but the first systematic review was not until 1922 (Miller, 1992). The first metroplasty was described in 1884 by Ruge.

Correction of vaginal anomalies

Many different techniques to create or reconstruct a vagina have been described by a variety of different authors, which suggests that there continues to be controversy over the optimal form of surgery. The evidence base on which to select a particular technique is limited to, at best, a series of case reports with short-term follow-up. This is, in part, inevitable because of the rarity of these conditions, but it does not help decision making. It is useful to look at how and what prompted the development of these various techniques (Schober et al., 1998).

Dupuytren described the first vaginoplasty in 1817 (Judin, 1927). This involved creating a perineal pouch between bladder and rectum. Wharton (1938) and Counsellor (1948) subsequently refined this technique by using a mould to hold the pouch open, which allowed spontaneous epithelialization to take place.

Type
Chapter
Information
Paediatric and Adolescent Gynaecology
A Multidisciplinary Approach
, pp. 120 - 130
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abbe, R (1898). A new method of creating a vagina in a case of congenital absence. Med Rec 54, 836–838Google Scholar
Abramovici, H, Faktor, J H, Pascal, B (1983). Congenital uterine malformations as indication for cervical suture (cerclage) in habitual abortion and premature delivery. Int J Fertil 28, 161–164Google ScholarPubMed
Alatas, C, Aksoy, E, Akarsu, C, Yaakin, K, Aksoy, S, Hayran, M (1997). Evaluation of intrauterine abnormalities in infertile patients by sonohysterography. Hum Reprod 12, 487–490CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American Fertility Society (1988). The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, mullerian abnormalities and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril 49, 1944–1955
Ansbacher, R (1983). Uterine anomalies and future pregnancies. Clin Perinatol 10, 295–304CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ashton, D, Amin, H K, Richart, R M, Neuwirth, R S (1988). The incidence of asymptomatic uterine anomalies in women undergoing transcervical tubal sterilization. Obstet Gynecol 72, 28–30Google ScholarPubMed
Ashworth, M F, Morton, K E, Dewhurst, J, Lilford, R J, Bates, R G (1986). Vaginoplasty using amnion. Obstet Gynecol 67, 443–446Google ScholarPubMed
Assaf, A, Serour, G, Ackady, A, El-Agizy, H (1990). Endoscopic management of the intrauterine septum. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 32, 43–51CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ayhan, A, Yucel, I, Tunrer, Z S, Kisnisci, H A (1992). Reproductive performance after conventional metroplasty: an evaluation of 102 cases. Fertil Steril 57, 1194–1196CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bacsko, G (1997). Uterine surgery by operative hysteroscopy. Eur J Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Biol 71, 219–222CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baldwin, J F (1904). The formation of an artificial vagina by intestinal transplantation. Ann Surg 40, 398Google Scholar
Ben Rafael, Z, Seidman, D S, Recabi, K, Bider, D, Mashiach, S (1991). Uterine anomalies: a retrospective matched control study. J Reprod Med 36, 723–727Google ScholarPubMed
Buttram, V C (1983). Mullerian anomalies and their management. Fertil Steril 40, 159–161CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buttram, V C Jr, Gibbons, W E (1979). Mullerian anomalies: a proposed classification (an analysis of 144 cases). Fertil Steril 32, 40–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, J, Nussbaum-Blask, A, Taylor, W S et al. (2000). Prevalence of mullerian duct anomalies detected at ultrasound. Am J Med Genet 94, 9–123.0.CO;2-H>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caione, P, Silveri, M, Capitanucci, M L, Capozia, N, Gennaro, M (1995). Urinary incontinence in mullerian duct anomalies. Pamminerva Med 37, 14–17Google ScholarPubMed
Cali, R W, Pratt, J H (1968). Congenital absence of the vagina: long term results of vaginal reconstruction in 175 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 100, 752–763CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chervenak, F A, Neuwirth, R S (1981). Hysteroscopic resection of the uterine septum. Am J Obstet Gynecol 141, 351CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Claret I, Castanon M, Rodo J et al. (1988). Neovagina con injerto libre do mucosa vesical (technical original de Claret). Libro de Actas del XXVIII Congreso de la Sociedad Espanola de Chirugia Pediatrica, Lloret de Mar, Spain
Counsellor, V S (1948). Congenital absence of the vagina. J Am Med Assoc 136, 861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daly, D C, Walters, C A, Soto-Albors, et al. (1983). Hysteroscopic metroplasty: surgical technique and obstetrical outcome. Fertil Steril 39, 623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damario M A, Rock J A (2000). Uterovaginal anomalies. In Paediatric and Adolescent Gynaecology, 2nd edn, Koehler Carpenter S E, Rock J A, eds, pp. 332–353. Lippincourt Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA
Cherney, A, Russell, J B, Graebe, R A (1986). Resectoscopic management of mullerian fusion defects. Fertil Steril 45, 726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davydov, S N, Zhvitiashvili, O D (1974). Formation of vagina (colpopoiesis) from peritoneum of Douglas pouch. Acta Chir Plast 16, 35–41Google ScholarPubMed
Doyle, M B (1992). Magnetic resonance imaging in mullerian fusion defects. J Reprod Med 37, 33–38Google ScholarPubMed
Edmonds D K (1994). Sexual development anomalies and their reconstruction: upper and lower tracts. In Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, Sanfillipo J, Muram D, Lee P, Dewhurst J, eds., pp. 535–566. Saunders, Philadelphia, PA
Emans S J, Laufer M R, Goldstein D P (1998). Paediatric and Adolescent Gynaecology. Lippincourt Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA
Fedele, L, Vercellini, P, Marchini, M et al. (1988). Communication uteri: description and classification of a new type. Int J Fertil 33, 168Google Scholar
Fortunoff, S, Lattimer, J K, Edson, M (1964). Vaginoplasty technique for female pseudohermaphrodites. Surg Gynecol Obstet 118 545–548Google ScholarPubMed
Frank, R T (1938). The formation of an artificial vagina without operation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 35, 1053–1055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gemer, O, Segal, S (1994). Incidence and contribution of predisposing factors to transverse lie presentation. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 44, 219–221CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Golan, A, Ranger, R, Burkousky, I, Caspi, E (1989). Congenital anomalies of the mullerian system. Fertil Steril 1989 51, 747–755Google ScholarPubMed
Gray, S E, Roberts, D K, Franklin, R R (1984). Fertility after metroplasty of the septate uterus. J Reprod Med 29, 185–188Google ScholarPubMed
Hamilton, J A, Larson, A J, Lower, A M, Hasnain, S, Grudzinskas, J G (1998). Routine use of saline hysterosonography in 500 consecutive unselected infertile women. Hum Reprod 13, 2463–2473CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, R, Fleming, S, Gysrer, M, McCorie, G (1985). The genital tract in female children with an imperforate anus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 151, 169–171CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hannoun, A, Khalil, A, Karan, K (1989). Uterine unification procedure: postoperative obstetrical outcome. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 30, 161–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heinonen, P K (1982). Longitudinal vaginal septum. Eur J Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Biol 13, 253–258CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heinonen, P K (1997). Reproductive performance of women with uterine anomalies after abdominal or hysteroscopic metroplasty or no surgical treatment. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 4, 311–317CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heinonen, P K, Pystynen, P P (1983). Primary infertility and uterine anomalies. Fertil Steril 40, 311–316CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heinonen, P K, Saarikoski, S, Pystynen, P (1982). Reproductive performance of women with uterine anomalies: an evaluation of 182 cases. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 61, 157CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hendren, W H, Donahue, P K (1980). Correction of congenital abnormalities of vagina and perineum. J Pediatr Surg 15, 751–763CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hickey, K, Cairns, A, Balen, A H (1998). Rupture of a rudimentary uterine horn at 19 weeks' gestation. J Obstet Gynecol 18, 394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Israel, R, March, C M (1981). Hysteroscopic incision of the septate uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 140, 867Google Scholar
Jackson, N D, Rosenblatt, P L (1994). Use of Interceed absorbable adhesion barrier for vaginoplasty. Obstet Gynecol 84, 1048–1050Google ScholarPubMed
Jones H W Jr (1992). Reconstruction of congenital uterovaginal anomalies. In Female Reproductive Surgery, Rock J, Murphy A, Jones H W, eds. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, MD
Jones, H W Jr, Jones, G E S (1954). The gynaecological aspects of adrenal hyperplasia and allied disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol 68, 1330Google Scholar
Judin, S (1927). Surg Gynecol Obstet 44, 530
Jurkovic, D, Geipel, A, Grboeck, K, Jauniaux, E, Natucci, M, Campbell, S (1995). Three dimensional ultrasound for the assessment of uterine anatomy, detection of congenital anomalies: a comparison with hysterosalpingography and two dimensional sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 5, 233–237CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jurkovic, D, Gruboeck, K, Tailor, A, Nicolaides, K H (1997). Ultrasound screening for congenital uterine anomalies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104, 1320–1321CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keltz, M D, Berger, S B, Comite, F, Olive, D I (1994). Duplicate cervix and vagina associated with infertility, endometriosis and chronic pelvic pain. Obstet Gynecol 84, 701–703Google ScholarPubMed
Khalil, A M, Azar, G B, Hannoun, A B, Sawaya, J T, Abumasa, A A (1995). Reproductive outcome following abdominal metroplasty. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 49, 157–160CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirk, E P, Chyong, J, Coulam, C B, Williams, T J (1993). Pregnancy after metroplasty for uterine anomalies. Fertil Steril 59, 1164–1168CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kumar, H, Kiefer, I E, Rosenthal, I E, Clark, S S (1974). Clitoroplasty: experience during a 19 year period. J Urol 111, 81–84CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lang, I M, Babyn, P, Oliver, G D (1999). MR imaging of paediatric uterovaginal anomalies. Pediatr Radiol 29, 163–170CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lavergne, N, Aristizabal, J, Zarka, V, Erny, R, Hedon, B (1996). Uterine anomalies and in vitro fertilization: what are the results?Eur J Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Biol 68, 29–34CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Letterie G S (1998). Structural Abnormalities and Reproductive Failure. Blackwell Science, Oxford
Ludmir, J, Samuels, P, Brooks, S, Mennuti, M T (1990). Pregnancy outcome of patients with uncorrected uterine anomalies managed in a high risk obstetric setting. Obstet Gynecol 75, 906–910Google Scholar
McCarthy, S (1990). Gynecological applications of MRI. Crit Rev Diagn Imaging 31, 263–281Google Scholar
Makino, T, Umeuchi, M, Nakada, K, Nozawa, S, Iizuka, R (1992a). Incidence of congenital uterine anomalies in repeated reproductive wastage and prognosis for pregnancy after metroplasty. Int J Fertil 37, 167–170Google Scholar
Makino, T, Hara, T, Oka, C et al. (1992b). Survey of 1120 Japanese women with a history of recurrent spontaneous abortions. Eur J Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Biol 44, 123–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manesci, F, Marana, R, Muzii, L, Manusco, S (1993). Reproductive performance in women with bicornuate uterus. Acta Eur Fertil 24, 117–120Google Scholar
Maneschi, F, Zupi, E, Marconi, D, Valli, E, Romanini, C, Mancuso, S (1995). Hysteroscopically detected asymptomatic mullerian anomalies: prevalence and reproductive implications. J Reprod Med 40, 684–688Google ScholarPubMed
McIndoe, A H, Bannister, J B (1938). An operation for the cure of congenital absence of the vagina. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp 45, 490–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matts, S J, Clark, T J, Khan, K S, Gupta, J K (2000). Surgical correction of congenital uterine anomalies. Hosp Med 61, 246–249CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, N F (1992). Clinical aspects of uterus didelphys. Am J Obstet Gynecol 4, 398–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minto, C L, Hollings, N, Hall-Craggs, M, Creighton, S (2001). Magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of complex Mullerian anomalies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 108, 791–797Google ScholarPubMed
Mintz, M C, Thickman, D I, Gussman, D, Kressel, H Y (1987). MR evaluation of uterine anomalies. Am J Roentgenol 148, 287–290CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Musich, J R, Behrman, S J (1978). Obstetric outcome before and after metroplasty in women with uterine anomalies. Obstet Gynecol 52, 63–66Google ScholarPubMed
Nahum, G G (1998). Uterine anomalies. How common are they and what is their distribution among subtypes?J Reprod Med 43, 877–887Google ScholarPubMed
Olson, M C, Posniak, H V, Tempany, C M, Dudiak, C M (1992). MR imaging of the female pelvic region. Radiographics 12, 445–465CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Papp, Z, Toth, Z, Csecsei, K (1986). Ultrasound surveillance of pregnancies after metroplasty for septate uteri. Z Gynakol 108, 1307–1311Google Scholar
Passerini-Glazel, G (1989). A new I stage procedure for clitorovaginoplasty in severely masculinised female pseudo-hermaphrodites. J Urol 142, 562–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pellerito, J S, McCarthy, S M, Doyle, M B, Glickman, M G, Cherney, A H (1992). Diagnosis of uterine anomalies: relative accuracy of MR imaging, endovaginal sonography and hysterosalpingography. Radiology 183, 795–800CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raga, F, Bauset, C, Remohi, J, Bonilla-Musoles, F, Simon, C, Pellicer, A (1997). Reproductive impact of congenital Mullerian anomalies. Hum Reprod 12, 2277–2281CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rock J A (1997). Surgery for anomalies of the Mullerian ducts. In Te Linde's Operative Gynaecology, 8th edn, Rock J A, Thompson J D, eds., pp. 687–729. Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia, PA
Rock, J A, Schlaff, W D (1985). The obstetric consequences of uterovaginal anomalies. Fertil Steril 43, 681–692Google ScholarPubMed
Ruge, P (1884). Fall von schwangerschaft bei uterus septus. Z Gebutshilfe Gynakol 10, 141–143Google Scholar
Sagehashi, N (1993). Clitoroplasty for cliteromegaly due to adrenogenital syndrome without loss of sensitivity. Plast Reconst Surg 91, 950–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanfilippo, J S, Wakin, N G, Schikler, K N, Yussman, M A (1986). Endometriosis in association with uterine anomalies. Am J Obstet Gynaecol 154, 39–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, M A (1961). Arch Klin Chic 298, 977
Schober, J (1999). Feminising genitoplasty for intersex. Br J Urol Int 83, 39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharara, F I (1998). Complete uterine septum with cervical duplication, longitudinal vaginal septum and duplication of a renal collecting system. A case report. J Reprod Med 43, 1055–1059Google ScholarPubMed
Sheares, B H (1960). Congenital atresia of the vagina: a new technique for tunneling the space between the bladder and rectum and construction of a new vagina by a modified Wharton technique. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp 67, 24–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spence, J E (1998). Vaginal and uterine anomalies in the pediatric and adolescent patient. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 11, 3–11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spence, J M, Allen, T D (1973). Genital reconstruction in the female with the adrenogenital syndrome. Br J Urol 45, 126–130CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spiritos, N J, Evans, T N, Magyar, D M, Moghissi, K S (1987). The reproductive performance of women before and after metroplasty. Int J Fertil 32, 46–49Google Scholar
Stampe-Sorenson, S (1988). Estimated prevalence of mullerian anomalies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 67, 441–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor P J, Gordon A G (1993). Practical Hysteroscopy. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford
Toaff, M E, Lev-Toaff, A S, Toaff, R (1984). Communicating uteri: review, classification with introduction of two previously unreported types. Fertil Steril 41, 661Google ScholarPubMed
Tompkins, P (1962). Comments on the bicornuate uterus and twinning. Surg Clin North Am 42, 1049CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tulandi, T, Arronet, G H, McInnes, R A (1980). Arcuate and bicornuate uterine anomalies and infertility. Fertil Steril 34, 362–364CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valle R F (1999). Hysteroscopic resection of uterine septum. In Atlas of Laparoscopic and Hysteroscopic Techniques for Gynecologists, Tulandi T W B, ed., pp. 239–246. Saunders, London
Wagner, B J, Woodward, P J (1994). Magnetic resonance evaluation of congenital uterine anomalies. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 15, 4–17CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wharton, L R (1938). A simplified method of constructing a vagina. Ann Surg 107, 842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiersma, A F, Peterson, L F, Justema, E J (1976). Uterine anomalies associated with unilateral renal agenesis. Obstet Gynecol 47, 654–657Google ScholarPubMed
Williams, E A (1964). Congenital absence of the vagina: a simple operation for its relief. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 4, 511–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, P J, Sohaey, R, Wagner, B J (1995). Congenital uterine malformations. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 24, 178–197CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, M H, Hsu, C C, Huang, K E (1997). Detection of congenital mullerian duct anomalies using 3 dimensional ultrasound. J Clin Ultrasound 25, 487–4923.0.CO;2-J>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zorlu, C G, Yalcin, H, Ugur, M, Ozden, S, Kara-Soysal, S, Gokmen, O (1996). Reproductive outcome after metroplasty. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 55, 45–48CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×