Donald School Journal of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Register      Login

VOLUME 16 , ISSUE 1 ( January-March, 2022 ) > List of Articles


Recent Advances in 3D Assessment of Mullerian Anomalies

Ashok Khurana

Keywords : Accessory horn, Bicornuate, Bicorporeal, Didelphys, Hemiuterus, Mullerian anomalies, Septate, Unicornuate, Uterine septum

Citation Information : Khurana A. Recent Advances in 3D Assessment of Mullerian Anomalies. Donald School J Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2022; 16 (1):53-65.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10009-1916

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 22-04-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Mullerian anomalies present with a variety of clinical manifestations including infertility (Dysmorphic/T-shaped uterus), repeated first-trimester spontaneous miscarriages (Septate uterus), fetal growth restriction, fetal malposition, preterm labor, preterm delivery, obstructed or nonprogressive labor, and retained placenta. Paradoxically, a significant number of these anomalies are incidental findings and this creates a dilemma with offering treatment options. An unambiguous label of the type of dysmorphology is central to the solution to this problem. Consequently, attempts are being made to define these better in order to optimize the treatment offered. Ultrasound is one imaging tool that is widely available, economical, lacks radiation and can be achieved rapidly, and is now the first step to diagnosis. Two-dimensional (2D) ultrasound, however, misses a large number of anomalies because it is often impossible to demonstrate a coronal plane. This plane is necessary to delineate the external uterine contour, which is central to labeling a mullerian anomaly. Three-dimensional (3D) US is recommended for the diagnosis of mullerian anomalies in symptomatic patients belonging to high-risk groups and in any asymptomatic woman suspected to have an anomaly from routine evaluation. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endoscopy should be carried out for patients with suspected complex malformations or in diagnostic dilemmas. Adolescents with symptoms should be thoroughly assessed with 2D and 3D ultrasound, MRI, and with endoscopy.

  1. Heinonen PK, Saarikoski S, Pystynen P. Reproductive performance of women with uterine anomalies. An evaluation of 182 cases. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1982;61(2):157–162. DOI: 10.3109/00016348209156548
  2. Acien P. Reproductive performance of women with uterine malformations. Hum Reprod 1993;8(1):122–126. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137860
  3. Rackow BW, Arici A. Reproductive performance of women with Mullerian anomalies. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2007;19(3):229–237. DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0b013e32814b0649
  4. Saravelos SH, Cocksedge KA, Li T-C. Prevalence and diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies in women with reproductive failure: a critical appraisal. Hum Reprod Update 2008;14(5):415–429. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmn018
  5. 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(6):761–771. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmr028
  6. Brucker SY, Rall K, Campo R, et al. Treatment of congenital malformations. Semin Reprod Med 2011;29(2):101–112. DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1272472
  7. Strassmann EO. Fertility and unification of double uterus. Fertil Steril 1966;17(2):165–176. DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)35882-4
  8. Jarcho J. Malformations of the uterus. Am J Surg 1946;71:106–166. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9610(46)90190-0
  9. Buttram VC, Gibbons WE. Mullerian anomalies: a proposed classification (an analysis of 144 cases). Fertil Steril 1979;32(1):40–46. DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)44114-2
  10. Buttram Jr VC, Gomel V, Siegler A, et al. 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(6):944–955. DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)59942-7
  11. 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(5):1493–1497. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.05.036
  12. Grimbizis GF, Camus M, Tarlatzis BC, et al. Clinical implications of uterine malformations and hysteroscopic treatment results. Hum Reprod Update 2001;7(2):161–174. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/7.2.161
  13. Acién P, Acién M, Sanchez-Ferrer M. Complex malformations of the female genital tract. New types and revision of classification. Hum Reprod 2004;19(10):2377–2384. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deh423
  14. Acién P, Acién MI. The history of female genital tract malformation classifications and proposal of an updated system. Hum Reprod Update 2011;17(5):693–705. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmr021
  15. 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(8):2032–2044. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/det098
  16. Braun P, Grau FV, Pons RM, et al. Is hysterosalpingography able to diagnose all uterine malformations correctly? A retrospective study. Eur J Radiol 2005;53(2):274–279. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2004.04.004
  17. Roma Dalfo A, Ubeda B, Ubeda A, et al. Diagnostic value of hysterosalpingography in the detection of intrauterine abnormalities: a comparison with hysteroscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183(5):1405–1409. DOI: 10.2214/ajr.183.5.1831405
  18. Swart P, Mol BW, Veen F, et al. The accuracy of hysterosalpingography in the diagnosis of tubal pathology: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 1995;64(3):486–491. DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)57781-4
  19. Guimarães Filho HA, Mattar R, Pires CR, et al. Comparison of hysterosalpingography, hysterosonography and hysteroscopy in evaluation of the uterine cavty in patients with recurrent pregnancy losses. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2006;274(5):284–288. DOI: 10.1007/s00404-006-0186-3
  20. Dee Olpin J, Heilbrun M. Imaging of Mullerian duct anomalies. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2010;21(4):225–235. DOI: 10.1097/RMR.0b013e31823d801d
  21. Kupesic S. Clinical implications of sonographic detection of uterine anomalies for reproductive outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001;18(4):387–400 DOI: 10.1046/j.0960-7692.2001.00539.x
  22. Lindheim SR, Adsuar N, Kushner DM, et al. Sonohysterography: a valuable tool in evaluating the female pelvis. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2003;58(11):770–784. DOI: 10.1097/01.OGX.0000094386.63363.D7
  23. Mazouni C, Girard G, Deter R, et al. Diagnosis of Mullerian anomalies in adults: evaluation of practice. Fertil Steril 2008;89(1):219–222. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.02.044
  24. Cepni I, Ocal P, Erkan S, et al. Comparison of transvaginal sonography, saline infusion sonography and hysteroscopy in the evaluation of uterine cavity pathologies. ANZJ Obstet Gynecol 2005;45(1):30–35. DOI: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2005.00336.x
  25. Grimbizis GF, Tsolakidis D, Mikos T, et al. A prospective comparison of transvaginal ultrasound, saline infusion sonohysterography, and diagnostic hysteroscopy in the evaluation of endometrial pathology. Fertil Steril 2010;94(7):2720–2725. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.03.047
  26. Guven MA, Bese T, Demirkiran F, et al. Hydrosonography in screening for intracavitary pathology in infertile women. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2004;86(3):377–383. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2004.05.005
  27. Shokeir T, Abdelshaheed M. Sonohysterography as a first-line evaluation for uterine abnormalities in women with recurrent failed in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2009;91(4 Suppl):1321–1322. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.02.135
  28. Tur-Kaspa I, Gal M, Hartman M, et al. A prospective evaluation of uterine abnormalities by saline infusion sonohysterography in 1009 women with infertility or abnormal uterine bleeding. Fertil Steril 2006;86(6):1731–1735. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.05.044
  29. Valenzano MM, Mistrangelo E, Lijoi D, et al. Transvaginal sonohysterographic evaluation of uterine malformations. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006;124(2):246–249. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2005.06.041
  30. Jurkovic D, Geipel A, Gruboeck K, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound for the assessment of uterine anatomy and detection of congenital anomalies: a comparison with hysterosalpingography and two-dimensional sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995;5(4):233–237. DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1995.05040233.x
  31. Deutch TD, Abuhamad AZ. The role of 3-dimensional ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies. J Ultrasound Med 2008;27(3):413–423 DOI: 10.7863/jum.2008.27.3.413
  32. Raine-Fenning N, Fleischer AC. Clarifying the role of three-dimensional transvaginal sonography in reproductive medicine: an evidence-based appraisal. J Exper Clin Ass Reprod 2005;2:10. DOI: 10.1186/1743-1050-2-10
  33. Salim R, Woelfer B, Backos M, et al. Reproducibility of three-dimensional ultrasound diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003;21(6):578–582. DOI: 10.1002/uog.127
  34. Minto CL, Hollings N, Hall-Craggs M, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of complex Mullerian anomalies. Br J Obstet Gynecol 2001;108(8):791–797. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2001.00200.x
  35. Scarsbrook AF, Moore NR. MRI appearances of Mullerian duct abnormalities. Clin Radiol 2003;58(10):747–754. DOI: 10.1016/s0009-9260(03)00212-5
  36. Takagi H, Matsunami K, Noda K, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation double uterus and associated urinary tract anomalies: a report of five cases. J Obstet Gynaecol 2003;23(5):525–527. DOI: 10.1080/0144361031000153783
  37. Marten K, Vosshenrich R, Funke M, et al. MRI in the evaluation of Müllerian duct anomalies. J Clin Imaging 2003;27(5):346–350. DOI: 10.1016/s0899-7071(02)00587-9
  38. Pui MH. Imaging diagnosis of congenital uterine malformation. Comput Med Imag Graph 2004;28(7):425–433. DOI: 10.1016/j.compmedimag.2004.05.008
  39. Church DG, Vancil JM, Vasanawala SS. Magnetic resonance imaging for uterine and vaginal anomalies. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2009;21(5):379–389 DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0b013e3283307c3e
  40. Ludwin A, Ludwin I. Comparison of the ESHRE-ESGE and ASRM classifications of Mullerian duct anomalies in everyday practice. Hum Reprod 2015;30(3):569–580. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deu344
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.