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-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T07:18:09.484Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 53 - Nonmalignant Gynecology in Pregnancy (Content last reviewed: 15th October 2018)

from Section 6 - Late Prenatal – Obstetric Problems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 November 2017

By
Kassam Mahomed  and
Sailesh Kumar
Edited by
David James ,
Philip Steer ,
Carl Weiner ,
Bernard Gonik  and
Stephen Robson
David James
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
Philip Steer
Affiliation:
Imperial College London
Carl Weiner
Affiliation:
University of Kansas
Bernard Gonik
Affiliation:
Wayne State University, Detroit
Stephen Robson
Affiliation:
University of Newcastle
Get access

Summary

This chapter discusses the management of a number of gynecologic problems in association with pregnancy that are not covered elsewhere in the book.

Type
Chapter
Information
High-Risk Pregnancy
Management Options
 , pp. 1543 - 1555
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
First published in: 2017

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

Glanc, P, Brofman, N, Salem, S, et al. The prevalence of incidental simple ovarian cysts ≥ 3 cm detected by transvaginal sonography in early pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2007; 29: 502–6.Google Scholar
Sergent, F, Verspyck, E, Marpeau, L. [Management of an ovarian cyst during pregnancy]. Presse Med 2003; 32: 1039–45.Google Scholar
Zanetta, G, Mariani, E, Lissoni, A, et al. A prospective study of the role of ultrasound in the management of adnexal masses in pregnancy. BJOG 2003; 110: 578–83.Google Scholar
Perkins, KY, Johnson, JL, Kay, HH. Simple ovarian cysts: clinical features on a first-trimester ultrasound scan. J Reprod Med 1997; 42: 440–4.Google ScholarPubMed
Goffinet, F. [Ovarian cysts and pregnancy]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 2001; 30 (1 Suppl): S100–8.Google Scholar
Yen, CF, Lin, SL, Murk, W, et al. Risk analysis of torsion and malignancy for adnexal masses during pregnancy. Fertil Steril 2009; 91: 1895–902.Google Scholar
Szecsi, PB, Andersen, MR, Bjørngaard, B, Hedengran, KK, Stender, S. Cancer antigen 125 after delivery in women with a normal pregnancy: a prospective cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2014; 93: 1295–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Derchi, LE, Serafini, G, Gandolfo, N, Gandolfo, NG, Martinoli, C. Ultrasound in gynecology. Eur Radiol 2001; 11: 2137–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sherard, GB, Hodson, CA, Williams, HJ, et al. Adnexal masses and pregnancy: a 12-year experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 189: 358–62.Google Scholar
Usui, R, Minakami, H, Kosuge, S, et al. A retrospective survey of clinical, pathologic, and prognostic features of adnexal masses operated on during pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2000; 26: 89–93.Google Scholar
Hill, LM, Connors-Beatty, DJ, Nowak, A, Tush, B. The role of ultrasonography in the detection and management of adnexal masses during the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998; 179: 703–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, SB, Oelsner, G, Seidman, DS, et al. Laparoscopic detorsion allows sparing of the twisted ischemic adnexa. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1999; 6: 139–43.Google Scholar
Yuen, PM, Chang, AM. Laparoscopic management of adnexal mass during pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997; 76: 173–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balci, O, Gezginc, K, Karatayli, R, et al. Management and outcomes of adnexal masses during pregnancy: a 6-year experience. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2008; 34: 524–8.Google Scholar
Caspi, B, Ben-Arie, A, Appelman, Z, Or, Y, Hagay, Z. Aspiration of simple pelvic cysts during pregnancy. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2000; 49: 102–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glanc, P, Salem, S, Farine, D. Adnexal masses in the pregnant patient: a diagnostic and management challenge. Ultrasound Q 2008; 24: 225–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kobayashi, H, Yoshida, A, Kobayashi, M, Yamada, T. Changes in size of the functional cyst on ultrasonography during early pregnancy. Am J Perinatol 1997; 14: 1–4.Google Scholar
Rice, JP, Kay, HH, Mahony, BS. The clinical significance of uterine leiomyomas in pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989; 160: 1212–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strobelt, N, Ghidini, A, Cavallone, M, et al. Natural history of uterine leiomyomas in pregnancy. J Ultrasound Med 1994; 13: 399–401.Google Scholar
Laughlin, SK, Baird, DD, Savitz, DA, Herring, AH, Hartmann, KE. Prevalence of uterine leiomyomas in the first trimester of pregnancy: an ultrasound-screening study. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113: 630–5.Google Scholar
Qidwai, GI, Caughey, AB, Jacoby, AF. Obstetric outcomes in women with sonographically identified uterine leiomyomata. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107: 376–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winer-Muram, HT, Muram, D, Gillieson, MS. Uterine myomas in pregnancy. J Can Assoc Radiol 1984; 35: 168–70.Google Scholar
Rosati, P, Exacoustos, C, Mancuso, S. Longitudinal evaluation of uterine myoma growth during pregnancy. A sonographic study. J Ultrasound Med 1992; 11: 511–15.Google Scholar
Aharoni, A, Reiter, A, Golan, D, Paltiely, Y, Sharf, M. Patterns of growth of uterine leiomyomas during pregnancy: a prospective longitudinal study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1988; 95: 510–13.Google Scholar
Klatsky, PC, Tran, ND, Caughey, AB, Fujimoto, VY. Fibroids and reproductive outcomes: a systematic literature review from conception to delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 198: 357–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lam, SJ, Best, S, Kumar, S. The impact of fibroid characteristics on pregnancy outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 211: 395.e1–5.Google Scholar
Coronado, GD, Marshall, LM, Schwartz, SM. Complications in pregnancy, labor, and delivery with uterine leiomyomas: a population-based study. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 95: 764–9.Google Scholar
Exacoustos, C, Rosati, P. Ultrasound diagnosis of uterine myomas and complications in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 82: 97–101.Google Scholar
Vergani, P, Ghidini, A, Strobelt, N, et al. Do uterine leiomyomas influence pregnancy outcome? Am J Perinatol 1994; 11: 356–8.Google Scholar
Pritts, EA, Parker, WH, Olive, DL. Fibroids and infertility: an updated systematic review of the evidence. Fertil Steril 2009; 91: 1215–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carranza-Mamane, B, Havelock, J, Hemmings, R, et al. The management of uterine fibroids in women with otherwise unexplained infertility. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2015; 37: 277–85.Google Scholar
Chittawar, PW, Franik, S, Pouwer, AW, Farquhar, C. Minimally invasive surgical techniques versus open myomectomy for uterine fibroids. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; (10): CD004638.Google Scholar
Roberts, WE, Fulp, KS, Morrison, JC, Martin, JN. The impact of leiomyomas on pregnancy. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 39: 43–7.Google Scholar
Narayan, R, Rajat, , Goswamy, K. Treatment of submucous fibroids, and outcome of assisted conception. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1994; 1: 307–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koike, T, Minakami, H, Kosuge, S, et al. Uterine leiomyoma in pregnancy: its influence on obstetric performance. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 1999; 25: 309–13.Google Scholar
Celik, C, Acar, A, Ciçek, N, Gezginc, K, Akyürek, C. Can myomectomy be performed during pregnancy? Gynecol Obstet Invest 2002; 53: 79–83.Google Scholar
Bonito, M, Gulemì, L, Basili, R, Roselli, D. Myomectomy during the first and second trimester of pregnancy. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2007; 34: 149–50.Google Scholar
De Carolis, S, Fatigante, G, Ferrazzani, S, et al. Uterine myomectomy in pregnant women. Fetal Diagn Ther 2001; 16: 116–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wittich, AC, Salminen, ER, Yancey, MK, Markenson, GR. Myomectomy during early pregnancy. Mil Med 2000; 165: 162–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mollica, G, Pittini, L, Minganti, E, Perri, G, Pansini, F. Elective uterine myomectomy in pregnant women. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 1996; 23: 168–72.Google Scholar
Phelan, JP. Myomas and pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1995; 22: 801–5.Google Scholar
Miller, CE. Myomectomy: comparison of open and laparoscopic techniques. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2000; 27: 407–20.Google Scholar
Georgakopoulos, PA, Bersis, G. Sigmoido-uterine rupture in pregnancy after multiple myomectomy. Int Surg 1981; 66: 367–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Brown, AB, Chamberlain, R, Te Linde, RW. Myomectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1956; 71: 759–63.Google Scholar
Nezhat, C. The “cons” of laparoscopic myomectomy in women who may reproduce in the future. Int J Fertil Menopausal Stud 1996; 41: 280–3.Google Scholar
Matsunaga, JS, Daly, CB, Bochner, CJ, Agnew, CL. Repair of uterine dehiscence with continuation of pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 104: 1211–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dubuisso, JB, Fauconnier, A, Babaki-Fard, K, Chapron, C. Laparoscopic myomectomy: a current view. Hum Reprod Update 2000; 6: 588–94.Google Scholar
Tian, YC, Long, TF, Dai, YM. Pregnancy outcomes following different surgical approaches of myomectomy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2015; 41: 350–7.Google Scholar
Al-Serehi, A, Mhoyan, A, Brown, M, et al. Placenta accreta: an association with fibroids and Asherman syndrome. J Ultrasound Med 2008; 27: 1623–8.Google Scholar
Boivin, J, Bunting, L, Collins, JA, Nygren, KG. International estimates of infertility prevalence and treatment-seeking: potential need and demand for infertility medical care. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 1506–12.Google Scholar
Dupas, C, Christin-Maitre, S. [What are the factors affecting fertility in 2008?] Ann Endocrinol (Paris) 2008; 69 (Suppl 1): S57–61.Google ScholarPubMed
Snick, HK, Snick, TS, Evers, JL, Collins, JA. The spontaneous pregnancy prognosis in untreated subfertile couples: the Walcheren primary care study. Hum Reprod 1997; 12: 1582–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evers, JL. Female subfertility. Lancet 2002; 360: 151–9.Google Scholar
Grigorescu, V, Zhang, Y, Kissin, DM, et al. Maternal characteristics and pregnancy outcomes after assisted reproductive technology by infertility diagnosis: ovulatory dysfunction versus tubal obstruction. Fertil Steril 2014; 101: 1019–25.Google Scholar
Pandey, S, Shetty, A, Hamilton, M, Bhattacharya, S, Maheshwari, A. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from IVF/ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2012; 18: 485–503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ziadeh, SM, Zakaria, MR, Abu-Hieja, A. Pregnancy rates using CC/hMG or hMG alone. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 1997; 23: 97–101.Google Scholar
Elchalal, U, Schenker, JG. The pathophysiology of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: views and ideas. Hum Reprod 1997; 12: 1129–37.Google Scholar
Delvigne, A, Rozenberg, S. Epidemiology and prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS): a review. Hum Reprod Update 2002; 8: 559–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schieve, LA, Tatham, L, Peterson, HB, Toner, J, Jeng, G. Spontaneous abortion among pregnancies conceived using assisted reproductive technology in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 101: 959–67.Google Scholar
Devroey, P, Van Steirteghem, A. A review of ten years experience of ICSI. Hum Reprod Update 2004; 10: 19–28.Google Scholar
Clayton, HB, Schieve, LA, Peterson, HB, et al. Ectopic pregnancy risk with assisted reproductive technology procedures. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107: 595–604.Google Scholar
Perkins, KM, Boulet, SL, Kissin, DM, Jamieson, DJ; National ART Surveillance (NASS) Group. Risk of ectopic pregnancy associated with assisted reproductive technology in the United States, 2001–2011. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 125: 70–8.Google Scholar
Adamson, GD, de Mouzon, J, Lancaster, P, et al. World collaborative report on in vitro fertilization, 2000. Fertil Steril 2006; 85: 1586–622.Google Scholar
de Mouzon, J, Goossens, V, Bhattacharya, S, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2006: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2010; 25: 1851–62.Google Scholar
Qin, J, Wang, H, Sheng, X, et al. Pregnancy-related complications and adverse pregnancy outcomes in multiple pregnancies resulting from assisted reproductive technology: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Fertil Steril 2015; 103: 1492–508.e1–7.Google Scholar
Gunby, J, Bissonnette, F, Librach, C, et al. Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) in Canada: 2006 results from the Canadian ART Register. Fertil Steril 2010; 93: 2189–201.Google Scholar
van Peperstraten, AM, Hermens, RP, Nelen, WL, et al. Perceived barriers to elective single embryo transfer among IVF professionals: a national survey. Hum Reprod 2008; 23: 2718–23.Google Scholar
Allen, C, Bowdin, S, Harrison, RF, et al. Pregnancy and perinatal outcomes after assisted reproduction: a comparative study. Ir J Med Sci 2008; 177: 233–41.Google Scholar
Jackson, RA, Gibson, KA, Wu, YW, Croughan, MS. Perinatal outcomes in singletons following in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103: 551–63.Google Scholar
Caserta, D, Marci, R, Tatone, C, et al. IVF pregnancies: neonatal outcomes after the new Italian law on assisted reproduction technology (law 40/2004). Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2008; 87: 935–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malchau, SS, Loft, A, Henningsen, AK, Nyboe Andersen, A, Pinborg, A. Perinatal outcomes in 6,338 singletons born after intrauterine insemination in Denmark, 2007 to 2012: the influence of ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril 2014; 102: 1110–16.e2.Google Scholar
Hvidtjørn, D, Schieve, L, Schendel, D, et al. Cerebral palsy, autism spectrum disorders, and developmental delay in children born after assisted conception: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2009; 163: 72–83.Google Scholar
Kallen, B. The risk of neurodisability and other long-term outcomes for infants born following ART. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2014; 19: 239–44.Google Scholar
Romundstad, LB, Romundstad, PR, Sunde, A, et al. Increased risk of placenta previa in pregnancies following IVF/ICSI: a comparison of ART and non-ART pregnancies in the same mother. Hum Reprod 2006; 21: 2353–8.Google Scholar
Kashyap, S, Claman, P. Polycystic ovary disease and the risk of pregnancy-induced hypertension. J Reprod Med 2000; 45: 991–4.Google Scholar
Kuliev, A, Verlinsky, Y. The role of preimplantation genetic diagnosis in women of advanced reproductive age. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2003; 15: 233–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corbett, S, Shmorgun, D, Claman, P, et al. The prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2014; 36: 1024–36.Google Scholar
Ankum, WM, Mol, BW, Van der Veen, F, Bossuyt, PM. Risk factors for ectopic pregnancy: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 1996; 65: 1093–9.Google Scholar
McMahon, CA, Ungerer, JA, Beaurepaire, J, Tennant, C, Saunders, D. Anxiety during pregnancy and fetal attachment after in-vitro fertilization conception. Hum Reprod 1997; 12: 176–82.Google Scholar
Doherty, DA, Newnham, JP, Bower, C, Hart, R. Implications of polycystic ovary syndrome for pregnancy and for the health of offspring. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 125: 1397–406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McElhaney, RD, Ringer, M, DeHart, DJ, Vasilenko, P. Rubella immunity in a cohort of pregnant women. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999; 20: 64–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urman, B, Sarac, E, Dogan, L, Gurgan, T. Pregnancy in infertile PCOD patients. Complications and outcome. J Reprod Med 1997; 42: 501–5.Google Scholar
Rackow, BW, Arici, A. Reproductive performance of women with Mullerian anomalies. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2007; 19: 229–37.Google Scholar
Syed, I, Hussain, HK, Weadock, W, Ellis, J. Imaging in Mullerian duct abnormalities. Medscape. Updated: Feb 28, 2016. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/405335-overview (accessed March 2017).Google Scholar
Golan, A, Langer, R, Neuman, M, et al. Obstetric outcome in women with congenital uterine malformations. J Reprod Med 1992; 37: 233–6.Google Scholar
Heinonen, PK. Pregnancies in women with uterine malformation, treated obstruction of hemivagina and ipsilateral renal agenesis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2013; 287: 975–8.Google Scholar
Alfirevic, Z, Stampalija, T, Roberts, D, Jorgensen, AL. Cervical stitch (cerclage) for preventing preterm birth in singleton pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; (4): CD008991.Google Scholar
Iams, JD. Prevention of preterm parturition. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1861.Google Scholar
Heinonen, PK. Reproductive performance of women with uterine anomalies after abdominal or hysteroscopic metroplasty or no surgical treatment. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1997; 4: 311–17.Google Scholar
Leiman, G, Harrison, NA, Rubin, A. Pregnancy following conization of the cervix: complications related to cone size. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980; 136: 14–18.Google Scholar
Pinborg, A, Ortoft, G, Loft, A, Rasmussen, SC, Ingerslev, HJ. Cervical conization doubles the risk of preterm and very preterm birth in assisted reproductive technology twin pregnancies. Hum Reprod 2015; 30: 197–204.Google Scholar
Ehsanipoor, RM, Jolley, JA, Goldshore, MA, et al. The relationship between previous treatment for cervical dysplasia and preterm delivery in twin gestations. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2014; 27: 821–4.Google Scholar
Cook, JR, Seman, EI. Pregnancy following endometrial ablation: case history and literature review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2003; 58: 551–6.Google Scholar
Roux, I, Das, M, Fernandez, H, Deffieux, X. Pregnancy after endometrial ablation: a report of three cases. J Reprod Med 2013; 58: 173–6.Google Scholar
Yin, CS. Pregnancy after hysteroscopic endometrial ablation without endometrial preparation: a report of five cases and a literature review. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 49: 311–19.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
×