Donald School Journal of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology

Register      Login

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 1 ( January-March, 2021 ) > List of Articles

REVIEW ARTICLE

Congenital Uterine Anomalies: Impact on Perinatal Outcomes

Orion Gliozheni, Elko Gliozheni

Keywords : Congenital anomalies, Miscarriage, Mullerian anomalies, Perinatal outcome, Preterm delivery, Uterine anomalies

Citation Information : Gliozheni O, Gliozheni E. Congenital Uterine Anomalies: Impact on Perinatal Outcomes. Donald School J Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2021; 15 (1):64-80.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10009-1685

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 00-03-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Congenital anomalies of the female reproductive system are defined as deviations from normal anatomy, and present a diagnostic challenge because of the variety of morphologic presentations. They are the result of abnormal development of the Müllerian ducts during embryogenesis. These anatomic disorders occur frequently and may result from genetic mutation, developmental arrest or acquired defects. Disorders range from congenital absence of the vagina and uterus, to defects in lateral or vertical fusion of the Müllerian ducts. A variety of anatomic defects may also be found in the urinary system. These anomalies are often asymptomatic and unrecognized. The true prevalence of uterine anomalies in the population is unknown. A recent major study indicated the prevalence of uterine anomalies (including minor anomalies, such as hypoplastic or arcuate uteri) about 7–8% in the normal fertile population and >25% in women with recurrent spontaneous abortions. Less than half, have clinical symptoms. Provided there is no obstruction to menstrual flow, these uterine anomalies present few problems in the absence of pregnancy. In the presence of pregnancy there is an increased incidence of miscarriage, poor fetal growth and malpresentation or placental adherence. The risk of spontaneous abortions in this group, during the first-trimester is 28–45%, while in the second-trimester is 5%. There are different uterine anomalies. A complete failure of fusion between the ducts results in a didelphic uterus. A partial failure results in an arcuate or bicornuate uterus. A failure of septal resorption results in variants ranging from a subseptate to a septate uterus. Atresia of one of the paramesonephric ducts results in a unicornuate uterus with a single tube. A differential diagnosis is very important, because of prognosis for reproduction and the choice of the most suitable surgical approach. Women with uterine anomalies are known to have a higher incidence of infertility, pelvic pain, recurrent pregnancy loss, preterm labor, fetal mortality, fetal growth restriction, preterm rupture of membranes, abnormal fetal presentation, retained placenta, and increased cesarean delivery rate. US is often the first imaging modality chosen because of its availability, short scan time, and low cost, several limitations are encountered during imaging. Transvaginal imaging, although superior to the transabdominal approach, may not always be possible, as in young girls or patients with vaginal septa. Detection of uterine anomalies by 3D ultrasound or MRI has really increased the accurate diagnosis of these anomalies. Several studies have examined pregnancy outcomes for each specific uterine anomaly. Women with an arcuate uterus have a similar reproductive outcome to women with a normal uterus. The unicornuate uterus has the poorest overall reproductive outcome, and the septate uterus has an increased miscarriage rate. The didelphic uterus, also has poor obstetrical outcomes. Didelphic, bicornuate, unicornuate, and septate uteri have also lower pregnancy rates in ART. Conclusion: Women with congenital uterine malformation usually have poorer reproductive outcomes and higher incidence of complications during pregnancy and delivery. Early diagnosis and treatment can improve obstetric outcomes.


PDF Share
  1. Sharara FI. Complete uterine septum with cervical duplication, longitudinal vaginal septum and duplication of a renal collecting system. J Reprod Med 1998;43:1055–1059.
  2. Sarris I, Bewley S, Agnihotri S. Oxford specialty training: training in obstetrics and gynaecology (the essential curriculum). embryology of genital tract. Congenital uterine and vaginal anomalies, vol. 26., Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009. p. 32.
  3. 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.
  4. 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(5):415–429. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmn018.
  5. [Online] Available from: https://courses.washington.edu/conj/bess/differentiation/differentiation.htm.
  6. Hasana DI, Aly Tantawy HI, Shazly SA. Imaging of the uterovaginal anomalies. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 2010;41(4):517–523. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrnm.2010.10.008.
  7. Nahum GG. Uterine anomalies, induction of labor, and uterine rupture. Obstet Gynecol 2005;106(5):1150–1152. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000185308.80753.8f.
  8. Achiron R, Tadmor O, Kamar R, et al. Prerupture ultrasound diagnosis of interstitial and rudimentary uterine horn pregnancy in the second trimester: a report of two cases. J Reprod Med 1992;37:89–92.
  9. Zaidi J, Carr J. Rupture of pregnant rudimentary uterine horn with fetal salvage. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1994;73(4):359–360. DOI: 10.3109/00016349409015781.
  10. Jayasinghe Y, Rane A, Stalewski H, et al. The presentation and early diagnosis of the rudimentary uterine horn. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105(6):1456–1467. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000161321.94364.56.
  11. Burchell RC, Creed F, Rasoulpour M, et al. Vascular anatomy of the human uterus and pregnancy wastage. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1978;85(9):698–706. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1978.tb14950.x.
  12. Roddick JWJr, Buckingham JC, Danforth DN. The muscular cervix—a cause of incompetency in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1961;17(5):562–565. DOI: 10.1097/00006254-196110000-00005.
  13. Blum M. Comparative study of serum CAP activity during pregnancy in malformed and normal uterus. J Perinat Med 1978;6(3):165–168. DOI: 10.1515/jpme.1978.6.3.165.
  14. Golan A, Langer R, Wexler S, et al. Cervical cerclage—its role in the pregnant anomalous uterus. Int J Fertil 1990;35:164–170.
  15. Abramovici H, Faktor JH, Pascal B. Congenital uterine malformations as indication for cervical suture (cerclage) in habitual abortion and premature delivery. Int J Fertil 1983;28:161–164.
  16. Buttram VCJr, Gibbons WE. Müllerian anomalies: a proposed classification. (an analysis of 144 cases). Fertil Steril 1979;32(1):40–46. DOI: 10.1016/S0015-0282(16)44114-2.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. Heinonen PK. Unicornuate uterus and rudimentary horn. Fertil Steril 1997;68(2):224–230. DOI: 10.1016/S0015-0282(97)81506-3.
  20. Hoffman BL, Schorge JO, Schaffer JI, et al. Williams Gynecology. 2nd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill; 2008. pp. 416–417
  21. Kara T, Acu B, Beyhan M, et al. MRI in the diagnosis of Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome. Diagn Interv Radiol 2013;19:227–232.
  22. Hall-Craggs MA, Williams CE, Pattison SH, et al. Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome: diagnosis with MR imaging. Radiology 2013;269(3):787–792. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13130211.
  23. ACOG Committee on Adolescent Health Care. ACOG committee opinion. number 274, july 2002. Nonsurgical diagnosis and management of vaginal agenesis. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:213–216.
  24. Roberts CP, Haber MJ, Rock JA. Vaginal creation for Müllerian agenesis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185(6):1349–1352. DOI: 10.1067/mob.2001.119075.
  25. Croak AJ, Gebhart JB, Klingele CJ, et al. Therapeutic strategies for vAGINAL Müllerian aGENESIS. J Reprod Med 2003;48:395–401.
  26. Mc Indoe A. The treatment of congenital absence and obliterative conditions of the vagina. Br J Plast Surg 1950;2:254–267.
  27. Brännström M, Johannesson L, Bokström H, et al. Livebirth after uterus transplantation. Lancet 2015;385(9968):607–616. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61728-1.
  28. Johannesson L, Kvarnström N, Mölne J, et al. Uterus transplantation trial: 1-year outcome. Fertil Steril 2015;103(1):199–204. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.09.024.
  29. Zanetti E, Ferrari LR, Rossi G. Classification and radiographic features of uterine malformations: HSG study. Br J Radiol 1978;51(603):161–170. DOI: 10.1259/0007-1285-51-603-161.
  30. Heinonen PK. Clinical implications of the unicornuate uterus with rudimentary horn. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1983;21(2):145–150. DOI: 10.1016/0020-7292(83)90052-8.
  31. Fedele L, Zamberletti D, Vercellini P, et al. Reproductive performance of women with unicornuate uterus. Fertil Steril 1987;47(3):416–419. DOI: 10.1016/S0015-0282(16)59047-5.
  32. Akar ME, Bayar D, Yildiz S, et al. Reproductive outcome of women with unicornuate uterus. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2005;45(2):148–150. DOI: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2005.00346.x.
  33. Acién P. Reproductive performance of women with uterine malformations. Hum Reprod 1993;8(1):122–126. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137860.
  34. TheFetus.net. (2007). Uterine malformations. [online] Available from: https://sonoworld.com/fetus/page.aspx?id =2150 [Accessed June, 2018].
  35. Medscape. (2016). Imaging in Mullerian Duct Abnormalities. [online] Available from: https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/405335-overview [Accessed June, 2018].
  36. Radiology Key. (2016). Congenital Uterine Anomalies. [online] Available from: https://radiologykey.com/congenital-uterine-anomalies-2/ [Accessed June, 2018].
  37. Patel MS, Rotator cuff tear. Radiopaedia. [online] Available from: https://www.radiopaedia.org/cases/rotator-cuff-tear-4. [Accessed June, 2017].
  38. Rani A, Kumari M. Shipra. A case of noncommunicating uterine horn containing functional endometrium. Gynecol Obstet (Sunnyvale) 2015;5:320. DOI: 10.4172/2161-0932.
  39. Cohen AW, Chhibber G. Obstetric complications of congenital anomalies of the paramesonephric ducts. Semin Reprod Endocrinol 1986;4(01):59–65. DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-1022485.
  40. Sen KK, Balasubramaniam D, Kanagaraj V. Magnetic resonance imaging in obstructive Müllerian anomalies. J Hum Reprod Sci 2013;6(2):162–164. DOI: 10.4103/0974-1208.117167.
  41. Reichman D, Laufer MR, Robinson BK. Pregnancy outcomes in unicornuate uteri: a review. Fertil Steril 2009;91(5):1886–1894. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.02.163.
  42. Nezhat F, Nezhat C, Bess O, et al. Laparoscopic amputation of noncommunicating rudimentary horn after hysteroscopic diagnosis: a case study. Surg Laparosc Endosc 1994;4:155–156.
  43. Wong L, White N, Ramkrishna J, et al. Three-dimensional imaging of the uterus: the value of the coronal plane. World J Radiol 2015;7(12):484–493. DOI: 10.4329/wjr.v7.i12.484.
  44. Sakinala K, Anencephaly. Radiopaedia. [online] Available from: https://radiopaedia.org/cases/anencephaly-2?iframe =true [Accessed June, 2018].
  45. Pissat S, Tas B, van Herendael B. Laparoscopic Strassman's metroplasty for bicornuate uterus. Gynecol Surg Endosc Imaging Allied Tech 2009;6(2):463. DOI: 10.1007/s10397-008-0463-1.
  46. Hinckley MD, Milki AA. Management of uterus didelphys, obstructed hemivagina and ipsilateral renal agenesis. A case report. J Reprod Med 2003;48:649–651.
  47. Coskun A, Okur N, Ozdemir O, et al. Uterus didelphys with an obstructed unilateral vagina by a transverse vaginal septum associated with ipsilateral renal agenesis, duplication of inferior vena cava, high-riding aortic bifurcation and intestinal malrotation: a case report. Fertil Steril 2008;90:2006.e9-11.
  48. Growdon WB, Laufer MR. Uterine didelphys with duplicated upper vagina and bilateral lower vaginal agenesis: a novel Müllerian anomaly with options for surgical management. Fertil Steril 2008;89:693–698.
  49. Heinonen PK. Clinical implications of the didelphic uterus: long-term follow-up of 49 cases. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2000;91:183–190.
  50. Grimbizis GF, Camus M, Tarlatzis BC, et al. Clinical implications of uterine malformations and hysteroscopic treatment results. Hum Reprod Update 2001;7:161–174.
  51. Strassman E. Plastic unification of double uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1952;64:25–37.
  52. Heinonen PK, Saarikoski S, Pystynen P. Reproductive performance of women with uterine anomalies. An Evaluat 182 Cases Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1982;61:157–162.
  53. Morgan MA, (2012). A bicornuate uterus. Radiopaedia.org. [online] Available from: https://radiopaedia.org/ [Accessed June, 2018].
  54. Matsaseng T, Kruger TF. Laparoscopic Strassman's metroplasty for bicornuate uterus—is it relevant? S Afr J Obstet Gynaecol 2012;18:85–87.
  55. Sinha R, Mahajan C, Hedge A, et al. Laparoscopic metroplasty for bicornuate uterus. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2006;13:70–73.
  56. Lolis DE, Paschopoulos M, Makrydimas G, et al. Reproductive outcome after strassman metroplasty in women with a bicornuate uterus. J Reprod Med 2005;50:297–301.
  57. Heinhonen PK. Complete septate uterus with longitudinal vaginal septum. Fertil Steril 2006;85:700–705.
  58. Woelfer B, Salim R, Banerjee S, et al. Reproductive outcome in women with congenital uterine anomalies detected by three-dimensional ultrasound screening. Obstet Gynecol 2001;98:1099–1103.
  59. Chervenak FA, Neuwirth RS. Hysteroscopic resection of the uterine septum. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981;141:351–353.
  60. Golan A, Langer R, Bukovsky I, et al. Congenital anomalies of the müllerian system. Fertil Steril 1989;51:747–755.
  61. 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;91:2628–2631.
  62. Gordts S. New developments in reproductive surgery. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynecol 2013;27:431–440.
  63. Kowalik CR, Goddijn M, Emanuel MH, et al. Metroplasty versus expectant management for women with recurrent miscarriage and a septate uterus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;6:CD008576.
  64. Behr SC, Courtier JL, Qayyum A. Imaging of müllerian duct anomalies. Radiographics 2012;32:E233–E250.
  65. Raga F, Bauset C, Remohi J, et al. Reproductive impact of congenital müllerian anomalies. Hum Reprod 1997;12:2277–2281.
  66. Palmer JR, Hatch EE, Rao RS, et al. Infertility among women exposed prenatally to diethylstilbestrol. Am J Epidemiol 2001;154:316–321.
  67. Steinkeler JA, Woodfield CA, Lazarus E, et al. Female infertility: a systematic approach to radiologic imaging and diagnosis. Radiographics 2009;29:1353–1370.
  68. Goldberg JM, Falcone T. Effect of diethylstilbestrol on reproductive function. Fertil Steril 1999;72:1–7.
  69. IVF-Infertility.com. (2016). Asherman's syndrome. [online] Available from: http://www.ivf-infertility.com/infertility/ashermans.php [Accessed June, 2018] .
  70. Silver S, Ginivitra. Asherman's syndrome. 2014.
  71. Schenker JG, Margalioth EJ. Intrauterine adhesions: an updated appraisal. Fertil Steril 1982;11:593–610.
  72. Shaffer W. Role of uterine adhesions in the cause of multiple pregnancy losses. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1986;29:912–924.
  73. March CM, Israel R. Gestational outcome following hysteroscopic lysis of adhesions. Fertil Steril 1981;36:455–459.
  74. Valle RF, Sciarra JJ. Intrauterine adhesions: hysteroscopic diagnosis, classification, treatment, and reproductive outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988;158:1459–1470.
  75. Siegler AM, Valle RF. Therapeutic hysteroscopic procedures. Fertil Steril 1988;50:685–701.
  76. Dillon WP, Mudaliar NA, Wingate MB. Congenital atresia of the cervix. Obstet Gynecol 1979;54:126–129.
  77. Rock JA, Schlaff WD, Zacur HA, et al. The clinical management of congenital absence of the uterine cervix. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1984;22:231–235.
  78. Niver DH, Barrette G, Jewelewicz R. Congenital atresia of the uterine cervix and vagina. Fertil Steril 1980;33:25–29.
  79. Grimbizis GF, Tsalikis T, Mikos T, et al. Successful end-to-end cervico-cervical anastomosis in a patient with congenital cervical fragmentation: case report. Hum Reprod 2004;19:1204–1210.
  80. Thijssen RF, Hollanders JM, Willemsen WN, et al. Successful pregnancy after ZIFT in a patient with congenital cervical atresia. Obstet Gynecol 1990;76:902–904.
  81. Sokol AI, Sokol ER. General Gynecology: The Requisites in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2013. p. 217.
  82. Drutz HP, Herschorn S, Diamant NE. Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery. Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Science+Business Media; 2007. p. 54.
  83. Arulkumaran S, Lesley R, Aris P, et al., ed. Oxford Desk Reference: Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011. p. 533.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.