Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T11:48:10.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 14 - Management of Congenital Uterine and Vaginal Anomalies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 September 2020

By
Attilio Di Spiezio Sardo ,
Gloria Calagna ,
Stefano Angioni  and
Luigi Nappi
Edited by
Mary E. Connor  and
T. Justin Clark
Mary E. Connor
Affiliation:
Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield
T. Justin Clark
Affiliation:
Birmingham Women’s Hospital
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.

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

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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle 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

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
×