Sonographic Assessment of Congenital Uterine Anomalies

Kanna Jayaprakasan; Lukasz Polanski; Kamal Ojha

doi:10.1017/9781108149877.005

Chapter 5 - Sonographic Assessment of Congenital Uterine Anomalies

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2020

Kanna Jayaprakasan ,

Lukasz Polanski and

Kamal Ojha

Sotirios H. Saravelos and

Tin-Chiu Li

Show author details

Kanna Jayaprakasan: Affiliation:
Department of Maternity and Gynaecology, Royal Derby Hospital, Derby
Lukasz Polanski: Affiliation:
Assisted Conception Unit, Guy’s Hospital, London
Kamal Ojha: Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, St George's University Hospital, London

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Congenital uterine anomalies (CUAs) are gaining increasing attention in the field of gynaecological ultrasound for a number of reasons: first, they appear to be of relatively high prevalence in both selected and unselected groups of women ; second, they appear to have a significant impact on reproductive outcomes and, on occasion, in adolescent symptomatology ; third, there has been a recent surge in relevant publications, which has culminated in a new international classification , and also a new international consensus for diagnosis. Three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound is now recommended as the gold standard method for diagnosis, which implies that gynaecologists and/or sonographers may be expected to attain the correct diagnoses and classification of CUA for women presenting to them with, and even without, symptomatology.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Gynaecological Ultrasound Scanning
Tips and Tricks
, pp. 69 - 78

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108149877.005 [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

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

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.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Chan, YY, Jayaprakasan, 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

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.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Grimbizis, GF, Gordts, S, Di Spiezio Sardo, A, et al. The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Hum Reprod 2013;28:2032–44.Google Scholar

Grimbizis, GF, Di Spiezio Sardo, A, Saravelos, SH, et al. The Thessaloniki ESHRE/ESGE consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies. Hum Reprod 2016;31:2–7.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

Buttram, VC Jr., Gibbons, WE. Mullerian anomalies: a proposed classification (an analysis of 144 cases). Fertil Steril 1979;32:40–6.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

AFS. 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

Oppelt, P, Renner, SP, Brucker, S, et al. The VCUAM (vagina cervix uterus adnex-associated malformation) classification: a new classification for genital malformations. Fertil Steril 2005;84:1493–7.Google Scholar

Acien, P. Embryological observations on the female genital tract. Hum Reprod 1992;7:437–45.Google Scholar

Ludwin, A, Ludwin, I. Comparison of the ESHRE-ESGE and ASRM classifications of Mullerian duct anomalies in everyday practice. Hum Reprod 2014; 30:569–80.Google Scholar PubMed

Graupera, B, Pascual, MA, Hereter, L, et al. Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound compared with magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis of Mullerian duct anomalies using ESHRE-ESGE consensus on the classification of congenital anomalies of the female genital tract. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015;46:616–22.Google Scholar

Saravelos, SH, Li, TC. Intra- and inter-observer variability of uterine measurements with three-dimensional ultrasound and implications for clinical practice. Reprod Biomed Online 2015;31:557–64.Google Scholar

Acien, P, Acien, M. The presentation and management of complex female genital malformations. Hum Reprod Update 2016;22:48–69.Google Scholar

Rikken, JF, Kowalik, CR, Emanuel, MH, et al. Septum resection for women of reproductive age with a septate uterus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;1:CD008576.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

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