Differential diagnosis of the uterine septum: problems and solutions

Cover Page
Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract


The article presents literature data on the peculiarities of diagnosing different types of uterine abnormalities. The main topic of the publication is the role and effectiveness of three-dimensional ultrasound in the differential diagnosis of the uterine septum.


Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Ekaterina V. Kazantseva

The Research Institute of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductology named after D.O. Ott

Author for correspondence.
Email: katrin8505@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4948-4125

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

MD, Post-Graduate Student

Elizaveta V. Shelayeva

The Research Institute of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductology named after D.O. Ott

Email: eshelaeva@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9608-467X
SPIN-code: 7440-0555
ResearcherId: K-2755-2018

Russian Federation, Saint Petersburg

MD, PhD, Senior Researcher. The Ultrasound Department

Elena I. Rusina

The Research Institute of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductology named after D.O. Ott

Email: pismo_rusina@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8744-678X
SPIN-code: 3527-5104
ResearcherId: K-1269-2018

Russian Federation, Saint-Petersburg

MD, PhD, DSci (Medicine), Leading Researcher

References

  1. 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):688-697.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.06.019.
  2. Grimbizis GF, Gordts S, Di Spiezio Sardo A, et al. The ESHRE-ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Gynecol Surg. 2013;10(3):199-212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10397-013-0800-x.
  3. Rackow BW, Arici A. Reproductive performance of women with Müllerian anomalies. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;19(3):229-237. https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0b013 e32814b0649.
  4. Fedele L, Bianchi S, Frontino G. Septums and synechiae: Approaches to surgical correction. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006;49(4):767-788. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.grf.0000 211948.36465.a6.
  5. Devi Wold AS, Pham N, Arici A. Anatomic factors in recurrent pregnancy loss. Semin Reprod Med. 2006;24(1):25-32. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-931798.
  6. Стрижаков А.Н., Давыдов А.И. Оперативная гистероскопия при пороках развития матки // Вопросы гинекологии, акушерства и перинатологии. − 2015. − Т. 14. − № 3. − С. 66–71. [Strizhakov AN, Davydov IM. Operative hysteroscopy in maldevelopment of the uterus. Gynecology, obstetrics and perinatology. 2015;14(3):66-71. (In Russ.)]
  7. Coleman AD, Arbuckle JL. Advanced imaging for the diagnosis and treatment of coexistent renal and Müllerian abnormalities. Curr Urol Rep. 2018;19(11):89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-018-0840-x.
  8. Lekovich J, Stewart J, Anderson S, et al. Placental malperfusion as a possible mechanism of preterm birth in patients with Müllerian anomalies. J Perinat Med. 2017;45(1):45-49. https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2016-0075.
  9. Abrao MS, Muzii L, Marana R. Anatomical causes of female infertility and their management. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2013;123(Suppl 2):S18-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo. 2013.09.008.
  10. Ludwin A, Ludwin I, Banas T, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of sonohysterography, hysterosalpingography and diagnostic hysteroscopy in diagnosis of arcuate, septate and bicornuate uterus. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;37(3):178-186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0756.2010.01304.x.
  11. Prior M, Richardson A, Asif S, et al. Outcome of assisted reproduction in women with congenital uterine anomalies: A prospective observational study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51(1):110-117. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog. 18935.
  12. Адамян Л.В., Кулаков В.И., Хашукоева А.З. Пороки развития матки и влагалища. – М.: Медицина, 1998. – 327 c. [Adamyan LV, Kulakov VI, Khashukoeva AZ. Poroki razvitiya matki i vlagalishcha. Мoscow: Medicina; 1998. 327 p. (In Russ.)]
  13. Braun P, Grau FV, Pons RM, Enguix DP. Is hysterosalpingography able to diagnose all uterine malformations correctly? A retrospective study. Eur J Radiol. 2005;53(2):274-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2004.04.004.
  14. Grimbizis GF, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Saravelos SH, et al. The Thessaloniki ESHRE/ESGE consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies. Gynecol Surg. 2016;13:1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10397-015-0909-1.
  15. Ghi T, Casadio P, Kuleva M, et al. Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound in diagnosis and classification of congenital uterine anomalies. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(2):808-813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.05.086.
  16. 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 twodimensional sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995;5(4):233-237. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0705.1995.05040233.x.
  17. Raga F, Bonilla-Musoles F, Blanes J, Osborne NG. Congenital Müllerian anomalies: Diagnostic accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound. Fertil Steril. 1996;65(3):523-528. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(16)58147-3.
  18. Kougioumtsidou A, Mikos T, Grimbizis GF, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis and the classification of congenital uterine anomalies using the ESHRE/ESGE classification: A diagnostic accuracy study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019;299(3):779-789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-019-05050-x.
  19. Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Tan A, et al. Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies: A systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38(4):371-382. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.10056.
  20. 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. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmn018.
  21. Salim R, Jurkovic D. Assessing congenital uterine anomalies: The role of three-dimensional ultrasonography. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2004;18(1):29-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2003.09.001.
  22. Ludwin A, Martins WP, Nastri CO, et al. Congenital Uterine Malformation by Experts (CUME): better criteria for distinguishing between normal/arcuate and septate uterus? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51(1):101-109. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.18923.
  23. Yoo RE, Cho JY, Kim SY, Kim SH. Magnetic resonance evaluation of Müllerian remnants in Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome. Korean J Radiol. 2013;14(2):233-239. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2013.14.2.233.
  24. Fukunaga T, Fujii S, Inoue C, et al. The spectrum of imaging appearances of müllerian duct anomalies: Focus on MR imaging. Jpn J Radiol. 2017;35(12):697-706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-017-0681-4.
  25. Junqueira BL, Allen LM, Spitzer RF, et al. Müllerian duct anomalies and mimics in children and adolescents: Correlative intraoperative assessment with clinical imaging. Radiographics. 2009;29(4):1085-1103. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.294085737.
  26. Padhani AR, Husband JE. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI studies in oncology with an emphasis on quantification, validation and human studies. Clin Radiol. 2001;56(8):607-620. https://doi.org/10.1053/crad.2001.0762.
  27. Мирошникова НА. Оптимизация хирургического лечения женщин с симметричными аномалиями матки с учетом кровотока в миометрии: автореф. дис. … канд. мед. наук. – М., 2019. – 26 c. [Miroshnikova NA. Optimizatsiya khirurgicheskogo lecheniya zhenshchin s simmetrichnymi anomaliyami matki s uchetom krovotoka v miometrii. [dissertation] Moscow; 2019. 26 p. (In Russ.)]
  28. Kupesic S. Clinical implications of sonographic detection of uterine anomalies for reproductive outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001;18(4):387-400. https://doi.org/ 10.1046/j.0960-7692.2001.00539.x.
  29. Corroenne R, Legendre G, May-Panloup P, et al. Surgical treatment of septate uterus in cases of primary infertility and before assisted reproductive technologies. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2018;47(9):413-418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2018.08.005.
  30. Marcus S, al-Shawaf T, Brinsden P. The obstetric outcome of in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer in women with congenital uterine malformation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175(1):85-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9378(96)70255-7.
  31. Tomaževič T, Ban-Frangež H, Virant-Klun I, et al. Septate, subseptate and arcuate uterus decrease pregnancy and live birth rates in IVF/ICSI. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;21(5):700-705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo. 2010.06.028.
  32. Paradisi R, Barzanti R, Natali F, et al. Hysteroscopic metroplasty: Reproductive outcome in relation to septum size. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014;289(3):671-676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-3003-9.
  33. Homer HA, Li TC, Cooke ID. The septate uterus: A review of management and reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(1):1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(99)00480-x.
  34. Zabak K, Bénifla JL, Uzan S. [Septate uterus and reproduction disorders: current results of hysteroscopic septoplasty. (In French)]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2001;29(11):829-840. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1297-9589(01)00228-4.
  35. Paradisi R, Barzanti R, Fabbri R. The techniques and outcomes of hysteroscopic metroplasty. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2014;26(4):295-301. https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO. 0000000000000077.
  36. Cararach M, Penella J, Ubeda A, Labastida R. Hysteroscopic incision of the septate uterus: Scissors versus resectoscope. Hum Reprod. 1994;9(1):87-89. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a138326.
  37. Duffy S, Reid PC, Smith JH, Sharp F. In vitro studies of uterine electrosurgery. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;78(2):213-220.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files Action
1.
Fig. 1. 3D ultrasound reconstruction of the uterine cavity: subseptate uterus, where Ш, uterine cavity width; Г, cavity indentation; B, angle of cavity indentation (86°)

Download (68KB) Indexing metadata
2.
Fig. 2. 3D ultrasound reconstruction of the uterine cavity: arcuate uterus, where Ш, uterine cavity width; Г, cavity indentation; B, angle of cavity indentation (120°)

Download (122KB) Indexing metadata
3.
Fig. 3. 3D ultrasound reconstruction of the uterine cavity: bicornuate uterus, where Ш, uterine cavity width; Г, cavity indentation; B, angle of cavity indentation

Download (77KB) Indexing metadata
4.
Fig. 4. 3D ultrasound reconstruction of the uterine cavity: normal uterus, where Ш, uterine cavity width; Г, cavity indentation; B, angle of cavity indentation

Download (54KB) Indexing metadata
5.
Fig. 5. Ultrasound criteria for the diagnosis of the uterine septum, where m, uterine wall thickness; I, cavity indentation; I/m, ratio of cavity indentation to uterine wall thickness; W, uterine cavity width; α, angle of cavity indentation

Download (72KB) Indexing metadata

Statistics

Views

Abstract - 30

PDF (Russian) - 14

PDF (简体中文) - 2

PDF (English) - 0

Cited-By


Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

PlumX

Dimensions


Copyright (c) 2020 Kazantseva E.V., Shelayeva E.V., Rusina E.I.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

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

About Cookies