Current classification systems and methodological approaches in the diagnosis of uterine malformations


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Uterine malformations are one of the possible causes of pregnancy loss and complications of pregnancy, labor, and delivery. The paper presents data on the frequency of uterine malformations. Different classifications of genital malformations, including current classifications, are considered. Various methodological approaches to diagnosing uterine malformations, which are based on ultrasonography findings, are given.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Oleg V. Safronov

South Ural State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: docsafronov@rambler.ru
PhD, associate professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Institute for Advanced Professional Education

Elena V. Briukhina

South Ural State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: elena-bruhina@rambler.ru
MD, professor, head of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Institute for Advanced Professional Education

Lyudmila S. Ishchenko

South Ural State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: LyudaLyn@mail.ru
PhD, associate professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Institute for Advanced Professional Education

Larisa E. Safronova

South Ural State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: lmel@rambler.ru
PhD, assistant of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Institute for Advanced Professional Education

Gohar N. Mshak-Manukyan

South Ural State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: goar_m-m@mail.ru
assistant of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Institute for Advanced Professional Education

References

  1. Venetis C.A., Papadopoulos S.P., Campo R., Gordts S., Tarlatzis B.C., Grimbizis G.F. Clinical implications of congenital uterine anomalies: a metaanalysis of comparative studies. Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2014; 29(6): 665-83. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.09.006.
  2. Gundabattula S.R., Joseph E., Marakani L.R., Dasari S., Nirmalan P.K. Reproductive outcomes after resection of intrauterine septum. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2014. 34(3): 235-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.3109/ 01443615.2013.836477.
  3. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Electronic address: ASRM@asrm.org; Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Uterine septum: a guideline. Fertil. Steril. 2016; 106(3): 530-40. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.05.014.
  4. Ludwin A., Pitynski K., Ludwin I., Banas T., Knafel A. Two- and threedimensional ultrasonography and sonohysterography versus hysteroscopy with laparoscopy in the differential diagnosis of septate, bicornuate, and arcuate uteri. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2013; 20(1): 90-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jmig.2012.09.011.
  5. Fernandes S.M., Magäes A.M., Marques A.L., Leite H.V. Reproductive outcomes after hysteroscopic septoplasty: a retrospective study. Rev. Bras. Ginecol. Obstet. 2015; 37(3): 110-14. https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/SO-720320150005258.
  6. Sugiura-Ogasawara M., Ozaki Y., Suzumori N. Mullerian anomalies and recurrent miscarriage. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 2013; 25(4): 293-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0b013e3283632849.
  7. Heinonen P.K. Distribution of female genital tract anomalies in two classifications. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2016; 206(11): 141-6. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.09.009.
  8. Di Spiezio Sardo A., Campo R., Gordts S., Spinelli M., Cosimato C., Tanos V. et al. The comprehensiveness of the ESHRE/ESGE classification of female genital tract congenitalanomalies: a systematic review of cases not classified by the AFS system. Hum. Reprod. 2015; 30(5): 1046-58. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev 061.
  9. Acien P., Acien M.I. The history of female genital tract malformation classifications and proposal of an updated system. Hum. Reprod. Update. 2011; 17(5): 693-705. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmr021.
  10. Oppelt P.G., Lermann J., Strick R., Dittrich R., Strissei P., Rettig I. et al. Malformations in a cohort of 284 women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome (MRKH). Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 2012; 10: 57. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-10-57.
  11. Amin M.B., Edge S., Greene F., Byrd D.R., Brookland R.K., Washington M.K. et al. The 8th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual. New York: Springer; 2017. 1032c.
  12. Grimbizis G.F., Gordts S., Di Spiezio Sardo A., Brucker S., DeAngelis C., Gergolet M. et al. The ESHRE-ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Gynecol. Surg. 2013; 10(3): 199-212. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10397-013-0800-x.
  13. Кругляк Д.А., Буралкина Н.А., Ипатова М.В., Батырова З.К., Уварова Е.В. Аплазия влагалища и матки (синдром Майера-Рокитанского-Кюстнера-Хазера): этиология, патогенетические аспекты и теория формирования порока (обзор литературы). Гинекология. 2018; 20(2): 64-6.
  14. Мартыш Н.С. Применение эхографии в диагностике аномалий развития внутренних половых органов у девочек. Акушерство и гинекология. 2011; 7-1: 89-93.
  15. Макиян З.Н., Адамян Л.В., Быченко В.Г., Мирошникова Н.А., Козлова А.В. Функциональная магнитно-резонансная томография для определения кровотока при симметричных аномалиях матки. Акушерство и гинекология. 2016; 10: 73-79.
  16. Адамян Л.В., Гашенко В.О., Данилов А.Ю., Коган Е.А. Результаты восстановления репродуктивной функции у больных с внутриматочной перегородкой после хирургического лечения и новые пути решения проблемы (обзор литературы). Проблемы репродукции. 2011; 17(1): 35-40.
  17. Graupera B., Pascual M.A., Hereter L., Browne J.L., Übeda B., Rodriguez I. 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(5): 616-22. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.14825.
  18. El-Sherbiny W., El-Mazny A., Abou-Salem N., Mostafa W.S. The diagnostic accuracy of two- vs three-dimensional sonohysterography for evaluation of the uterine cavity in the reproductive age. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2015; 22(1): 127-31. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2014.08.779.
  19. Liu M., Wang S.S., Lin X.W., He S.H. Clinical value of three-dimensional transvaginal sonography in diagnosis of septate uterus and prediction of adverse pregnancy outcome. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2013; 48(7): 499-503.
  20. Grimbizis G.F., Di Spiezio Sardo A., Saravelos S.H., Gordts S., Exacoustos C., Van Schoubroeck D. et al. The Thessaloniki ESHRE/ESGE consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies. Hum. Reprod. 2016; 31(1): 2-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev264.
  21. Ludwin A., Ludwin I. Comparison of the ESHRE-ESGE and ASRM classifications of Mullerian duct anomalies in everyday practice. Hum. Reprod. 2015; 30(3): 569-80. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu344.
  22. Ludwin A., Martins W.P., Nastri C.O., Ludwin I., Coelho Neto M.A., Leitäo V.M. et al. Congenital Uterine Malformation by Experts (CUME): better criteria for distinguishing between normal/arcuate and septate uterus? Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2018; 51(1): 101-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.18923.
  23. Ludwin A., Ludwin I., Kudla M., Kottner J. Reliability of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology/European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy and American Society for Reproductive Medicine classification systems for congenital uterine anomalies detected using three-dimensional ultrasonography. Fertil. Steril. 2015; 104(3): 688-97. e8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. fertnstert.2015.06.019.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies