Pregnancy and delivery outcomes in genital malformations
- Authors: Andreeva M.V.1, Linchenko N.A.1, Shevtsova E.P.1
-
Affiliations:
- Volgograd State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia
- Issue: No 7 (2020)
- Pages: 166-169
- Section: Articles
- URL: https://journals.eco-vector.com/0300-9092/article/view/248946
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.18565/aig.2020.7.166-169
- ID: 248946
Cite item
Open Access
Access granted
Abstract
Background. Despite significant advances in the diagnosis and treatment of gynecological diseases, uterine malformations remain one of the urgent problems. The diagnosis of congenital uterine and vaginal malformations presents significant challenges despite a wide range of modern imaging techniques (laparoscopy, hysteroscopy, hysterosalpingography, pelvic ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging) and leads to errors in recognizing the nature of the defect. In 24-34% of patients with congenital abnormalities of the reproductive tract, the diagnosis is unclear or incorrectly formulated, which further affects the efficiency of treatment and preservation of reproductive function in patients. Case report. The paper describes a clinical case of a 31-year-old patient with uterine malformation (uterus bicornis), which demonstrates a diagnostic algorithm, medical treatment efficiency, and favorable pregnancy and delivery outcomes. Conclusion. A comprehensive examination of women with suspected uterine malformations involves simultaneous hysteroscopy and laparoscopy. However, these are invasive techniques and are associated with the risks of anesthetic management. This clinical example demonstrates the possibility of making this diagnosis using threedimensional transvaginal ultrasonography (3D ultrasound) and metrosalpingography.
Full Text
About the authors
Margarita V. Andreeva
Volgograd State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia
Email: vaal947@yandex.ru
doctor of medical sciences, professor of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Natalya A. Linchenko
Volgograd State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia
Email: linchenko@inbox.ru
candidate of medical sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Elena P. Shevtsova
Volgograd State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia
Email: e.p.shevtsova@mail.ru
сandidate of medical sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology
References
- Бобкова М.В., Пучко Т.К., Адамян Л.В. Репродуктивная функция у женщин с пороками развития матки и влагалища. Проблемы репродукции. 2018; 24(2): 42-53.
- Гилязутдинова З.Ш., Тухватуллина Л.М. Невынашивание беременности при анатомических и функциональных нарушениях репродуктивной системы. Казань: Медицинская литература; 2008. 239 с.
- Taylor E., Gome L.V. The uterus and fertility. Fertil. Steril. 2008; 89(1): 1-16. https://dx.doi.org/10.10167j.fertnstert.2007.09.069.
- Gordts S. New developments in reproductive surgery. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2013; 27(3): 431-40. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. bpobgyn.2012.11.004.
- Bailey A.P., Jaslow C.R., Kutteh W.H. Minimally invasive surgical options for congenital and acquired uterine factors associated with recurrent pregnancy loss. Womens Health (Lond.). 2015; 11(2): 161-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.2217/ whe.14.81.
- Адамян Л.В., Богданова Е.А., Степанян А.А., Окулов А.Б., Глыбина Т.М., Макиян З.Н., Курило Л.Ф. Аномалии развития женских половых органов: вопросы идентификации и классификации (обзор литературы). Проблемы репродукции. 2010; 16(2): 7-15.
- Адамян Л.В., Кулаков В.И. Современные технологии в диагностике и лечении гинекологических заболеваний. М.; 2006. 216 с.
- Nouri K., Ott J., Huber J., Fischer E., Stogbauer L., Tempfer C. Reproductive outcome after hysteroscopic septoplasty in patients with septate uterus-a retrospective cohort study and systematic review of the literature. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 2010; 8: 52. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-8-52.
- 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.
- 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.
- Berger A., Batzler F., Lev-Toajf A., Berry-Roberts C. Diagnostic imaging modalities for Mullerian anomalies: the case for a new gold standard. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2014; 21(3): 335-45. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2013.10.014.
- Robbins J.B., Broadwell C., Chow L.C., Parry J.P., Sadowski E.A. Mullerian duct anomalies:embryological development, classification, and MRI assessment. J. Magn. Reson Imaging. 2015; 41(1): 1-12. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ jmri.24771.
- Graupera B., Pascual M.A., Hereter L., Browne J.L., Ubeda 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.
- Ludwin A., Martins W.P., Nastri C.O., Ludwin I., Coelho Neto M.A., Leitao 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.ois/10.1002/uog.18923.
- Демидов В.Н., Краснова К.Г. Возможности эхографии в диагностике пороков развития матки, шейки матки и влагалища. Ультразвуковая и функциональная диагностика. 2015; 5: 44-9.
Supplementary files
