Management of Congenital Uterine and Vaginal Anomalies

doi:10.1017/9781316276020.014

Chapter 14 - Management of Congenital Uterine and Vaginal Anomalies

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 September 2020

Attilio Di Spiezio Sardo ,

Gloria Calagna ,

Stefano Angioni and

Luigi Nappi

Edited by

Mary E. Connor and

T. Justin Clark

Show author details

Mary E. Connor: Affiliation:
Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield
T. Justin Clark: Affiliation:
Birmingham Women’s Hospital

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Congenital anomalies of the female genital tract are alterations in embryonic development due to an interruption or deviation in the ontogenesis of individual organs, or part, of the reproductive tract. The aetiology of these anomalies is unknown. Various hypotheses have been proposed, relating to genetic alterations, hereditary factors and exposure to exogenous noxious substances, including environmental pathogens.

The terminology commonly used for describing female genital tract anomalies is various and sometimes misleading: indeed, terms such as ‘uterine anomalies’, ‘congenital malformations of the female genital tract’ and ‘Müllerian anomalies’ are often used synonymously, although they actually refer to different concepts. The expression ‘congenital anomalies of the female genital tract’ includes those malformations that affect the development and morphology of the fallopian tubes, uterus, vagina and vulva, with or without associated ovarian, urinary, skeletal or other organ malformations.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Diagnostic and Operative Hysteroscopy , pp. 167 - 179

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316276020.014 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2020

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

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: 761–71.Google Scholar

Chan, YY, Jayarpakasan, K, Tan, A, et al. Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies: a systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 38: 371–82.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

American Fertility Society. The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, Müllerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril 1988; 49: 944–55.Google Scholar

Grimbizis, GF, Campo, R, Gordts, S, et al. Scientific Committee of the Congenital Uterine malformations (CONUTA) common ESHRE/ESGE working group. Clinical approach for the classification of congenital uterine malformations. Gynecol Surg 2012; 9: 119–29.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Mazouni, C, Girard, G, Deter, R, et al. Diagnosis of Mullerian anomalies in adults: evaluation of practice. Fertil Steril 2008; 89: 219–22.Google Scholar

Simpson, WL, Beitia, LG, Mester, J. Hysterosalpingography: a reemerging study. Radiographics 2006; 26: 419–31.Google Scholar

Pellerito, JS, McCarthy, SM, Doyle, MB, et al. Diagnosis of uterine anomalies: relative accuracy of MR imaging, endovaginal sonography, and hysterosalpingography. Radiology 1992; 183: 795–800.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Pui, MH. Imaging diagnosis of congenital uterine malformation. Comput Med Imaging Graph 2004; 28: 425–33.Google Scholar

Kupesic, S. Clinical implications of sonographic detection of uterine anomalies for reproductive outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18: 387–400.Google Scholar

Woelfer, B, Salim, R, Banerjee, SE, et al. Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies detected by three-dimensional ultrasound screening. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98: 1099–103.Google Scholar

Hamilton, JA, Larson, AJ, Lower, AM, Hasnain, S, Grudzinskas, JG. Routine use of saline hysterosonography in 500 consecutive, unselected, infertile women. Hum Reprod 1998; 13: 2463–73.Google Scholar

Sherbiny, AS. Value of 3-dimensional sonohysterography in infertility workup. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2011; 18: 54–8.Google Scholar

Bettocchi, S, Ceci, O, Di Venere, R, et al. Advanced operative office hysteroscopy without anaesthesia: analysis of 501 cases treated with a 5 Fr. bipolar electrode.Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 2435–8.Google Scholar

Homer, H, Li, T, Cooke, I. The septate uterus: a review of management and reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril 2000; 73: 1–14.Google Scholar

Pabuccu, R, Gomel, V. Reproductive outcome after hysteroscopic metroplasty in women with septate uterus and otherwise unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril 2004; 81: 1675–8.Google Scholar

Paradisi, R, Barzanti, R, Natali, F, Cesare, B, Sefano, V. Metroplasty in a large population of women with septate uterus. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2011; 8: 449–54.Google Scholar

Colacurci, N, De Franciscis, P, Mollo, A, et al. Small diameter hysteroscope with versapoint vs resectoscope with unipolar knife for the treatment of septate uterus: a prospective randomized study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2007; 14: 622–7.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Bifulco, G, Di Spiezio Sardo, A, De Rosa, N, et al. The use of an oral contraceptive containing estradiol valerate and dienogest before office operative hysteroscopy: a feasibility study. Gynecol Endocrinol 2012; 28: 949–55.Google Scholar

Perino, A, Forlani, F, Lo Casto, A, et al. Septate uterus: nosographic overview and endoscopic treatment. Gynecol Surg 2014; 11: 129–38.Google Scholar

Parsanezhad, ME, Alborzi, S, Zarei, A, et al. Hysteroscopic metroplasty of the complete uterine septum, duplicate cervix, and vaginal septum. Fertil Steril 2006; 85: 1473–7.Google Scholar

Faivre, E, Fernandez, H, Deffieux, X, et al. Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasonography in differential diagnosis of septate and bicornuate uterus compared with office hysteroscopy and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2012; 19: 101–6.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Ghi, T, Casadio, P, Kuleva, M, et al. Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound in diagnosis and classification of congenital uterine anomalies. Fertil Steril 2009; 92(2): 808–13.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Di Spiezio Sardo, A, Bettocchi, S, Spinelli, M, et al. Review of new office-based hysteroscopic procedures 2003–2009. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2010; 17: 436–48.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Pados, G, Tsolakidis, D, Athanatos, D, et al. Reproductive and obstetric outcome after laparoscopic excision of functional, non-communicating broadly attached rudimentary horn: a case series. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014; 182: 33–7.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Dalkalitsis, N, Korkontzelos, I, Tsanadis, G, Stefos, T, Lolis, D. Unicornuate uterus and uterus didelphys. Indications and techniques for surgical reconstruction: a review. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2003; 30: 137–43.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Di Spiezio Sardo, A, Florio, P, Nazzaro, G, et al. Hysteroscopic outpatient metroplasty to expand dysmorphic uteri (HOME-DU technique): a pilot study. Reprod Biomed Online 2015; 30: 166–74.Google Scholar

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.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Lin, PC, Bhatnagar, KP, Nettleton, GS, Nakajima, ST. Female genital anomalies affecting reproduction. Fertil Steril 2002; 78: 899–915.Google Scholar

Rackow, BW, Arici, A. Reproductive performance of women with Mullerian anomalies. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2007; 19: 229–37.Google Scholar

Revel, A. Defective endometrial receptivity. Fertil Steril 2012; 97: 1028–32.Google Scholar

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

Jayaprakasan, K, Chan, YY, Sur, S, et al. Prevalence of uterine anomalies and their impact on early pregnancy in women conceiving after assisted reproduction treatment. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011; 37: 727–32.Google Scholar

Saravelos, SH, 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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Zhang, Y, Zhao, YY, Qiao, J. Obstetric outcome of women with uterine anomalies in China. Chin Med J 2010; 123: 418–22.Google Scholar

Colacurci, N, De Placido, G, Mollo, A, Carravetta, C, De Franciscis, P. Reproductive outcome after hysteroscopic metroplasty. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1996; 66: 147–50.Google Scholar

Mollo, A, De Franciscis, P, Colacurci, N, et al. Hysteroscopic resection of the septum improves the pregnancy rate of women with unexplained infertility: a prospective controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2009; 91: 2628–31.Google Scholar

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

Tomazevic, T, Ban-Frangez, H, Ribic-Pucelj, M, Premru-Srsen, T, Verdenik, I. Small uterine septum is an important risk variable for preterm birth. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2007; 135: 154–7.Google Scholar

Grimbizis, G, Camus, M, Clasen, K, et al. Hysteroscopic septum resection in patients with recurrent abortions and infertility. Hum Reprod 1998; 13: 1188–93.Google Scholar

Venetis, CA, Papadopoulos, SP, Campo, R, et al. Clinical implications of congenital uterine anomalies: a meta-analysis of comparative studies. Reprod Biomed Online 2014; 29: 665–83.Google Scholar

Crocker, IP, Wareing, M, Ferris, GR, et al. The effect of vascular origin, oxygen, and tumour necrosis factor alpha on trophoblast invasion of maternal arteries in vitro. J Pathol 2005; 206: 476–85.Google Scholar

Lourdel, E, Cabry-Goubet, R, Merviel, P, et al. Septate uterus: role of hysteroscopic metroplasty. Gynécol Obstét Fertil 2007; 35: 811–18.Google Scholar

Patton, PE, Novy, MJ, Lee, DM, Hickok, LR. The diagnosis and reproductive outcome after surgical treatment of the complete septate uterus, duplicated cervix and vaginal septum. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 190: 1669–75.Google Scholar

Nappi, C, Atillo, DSS. Congenital anomalies of the genital tract. In State-of-the-Art Hysteroscopic Approaches to Pathologies of the Genital Tract. Tuttlingen: Endo-Press; 2014: 116–38.Google Scholar

Cicinelli, E, Romano, F, Didonna, T, et al. Resectoscopic treatment of uterus didelphys with unilateral imperforate vagina complicated by hematocolpos and hematometra: case report. Fertil Steril 1999; 72: 553–5.Google Scholar

Long, CY, Juan, YS, Liu, CM, Wu, CH, Tsai, EM. Concomitant resection of congenital vaginal septum during the tension-free vaginal tape procedure. Int Urogynecol J 2005; 16: 311–12.Google Scholar

Di Spiezio Sardo, A, Bettocchi, S, Bramante, S, et al. Office vaginoscopic treatment of an isolated longitudinal vaginal septum: a case report. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2007; 14: 512–15.Google Scholar

Cetinkaya, SE, Kahraman, K, Sonmezer, M, Atabekoglu, C. Hysteroscopic management of vaginal septum in a virginal patient with uterus didelphys and obstructed hemivagina. Fertil Steril 2011; 96: e16–18.CrossRef Google Scholar

Nassif, J, Chami, AA, Musa, AA, et al. Vaginoscopic resection of vaginal septum. Surg Technol Int 2012; 22: 173–6.Google Scholar

Melcer, Y, Smorgick, N, Fuchs, N, et al. Vaginal Mullerian cyst: an unusual cause of vaginal bleeding in a 16-month-old girl. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2014; 27: e21–2.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.