DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20190265

Mullerian ductal anomalies and its outcome

Rupa C. Vyas, Ashleta M. Moghariya, Sapana R. Shah, Purvi M. Parikh, Prachi M. Shelat

Abstract


Background: The aim is to study various investigative modalities to diagnose Mullerian anomalies and to evaluate the reproductive outcome that occurs as a result of malformation of genital tract.

Methods: A prospective study of reproductive anomalies and its outcome was performed by using data from women with congenital anomalies attended in OPD either with complains or for operative treatment or incidental diagnosis during caesarean section, manual removal of placenta, during laparoscopy or laparotomy at tertiary care center. Total 70 women with different types of congenital anomalies were included in study. Out of them gynecological cases (27) were diagnosed on basis of clinical examination and other diagnostic aids while Mullerian anomalies in obstetric cases (43) were observed and their outcomes were studied.

Results: Most common utero-vaginal anomaly seen in present study was septate uterus with 18 (25.7%) cases, followed by bicornuate uterus with 13 (18.6%) cases. Most common presenting symptom is primary amenorrhea 21 (30%) followed by cyclical abdominal pain 11 (15.7). HSG, USG are the primary tools to detect genital tract anomalies. Surgical correction was required in 47.1% patients.

Conclusions: Present study shows prevalence of congenital malformation of female reproductive tract is 0.17% at our tertiary care center. Utero-vaginal anomalies are a morphologically diverse group of developmental disorders. Establishing an accurate diagnosis is essential for planning treatment and management strategies. The surgical approach for correction of utero-vaginal anomalies is specific to the type of malformation and may vary in a specific group.


Keywords


Congenital anomalies, MRI, Reproductive function, USG

Full Text:

PDF

References


Strissel PL, Oppelt P, Cupisti S, Stiegler E, Beckman MW, Strike R. Assessment of pituitary and steroid hormones and member of the TGF-beta superfamily for ovarian function in patient with congenital uterus and vaginal aplasia (MRKH syndrome). Horm Res. 2009;41(5):408-13.

Amesse LS, Pfaff-Amesse T. Congenital anomalies of reproductive tract. In: Falcone T, Hurd WW, eds. Clinical Reproductive Medicine and Surgery. 1st ed. Mosby: New York, NY; 2007:171-190.

Moore KL, Persaud TV, Torchia MG. Before we are born: essentials of embryology and birth defects. Elsevier Health Sci; 2016.

Ashton D, Amin HK, Richart RM, Neuwirth RS. The incidence of asymptomatic uterine anomalies in women undergoing transcervical tubal sterilization. Obstet Gynecol. 1988;72(1):28-30.

Jurkovic D, Gruboeck K, Tailor A, Nicolaides KH. Ultrasound screening for congenital uterine anomalies. BJOG: An Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;104(11):1320-1.

Raga F, Bauset C, Remohi J, Bonilla-Musoles F, Simón C, Pellicer A. Reproductive impact of congenital Müllerian anomalies. Human Reprod (Oxford, England). 1997;12(10):2277-81.

Simón C, Martinez L, Pardo F, Tortajada M, Pellicer A. Müllerian defects in women with normal reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril.1991;56(6):1192 -3.

Acién P. Reproductive performance of women with uterine malformations. Human Reprod. 1993;8(1):122-6.

Godinjak Z, Idrizbegović E. Should diagnostic hysteroscopy be a routine procedure during diagnostic laparoscopy in infertile women?. Bosnian J Basic Med Sci. 2008;8(1):44.

Ghi T, Casadio P, Kuleva M, Perrone AM, Savelli L, Giunchi S, et al. Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound in diagnosis and classification of congenital uterine anomalies. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(2):808-13.

Troiano RN, McCarthy SM. Mullerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues. Radiol. 2004;233(1):19-34.

Hua M, Odibo AO, Longman RE, Macones GA, Roehl KA, Cahill AG. Congenital uterine anomalies and adverse pregnancy outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(6):558-e1.

Temime RB, Najar I, Chachia A, Attia L, Makhlouf T, Koubaa A. Hymenal imperforation: About 13 cases. Med Tunisia. 2010;88(3):168-71.

Bermejo C, Ten PM, Cantarero R, Diaz D, Pedregosa JP, Barrón E, et al. Three‐dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35(5):593-601.

Minto CL, Hollings N, Hall‐Craggs M, Creighton S. Magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of complex Müllerian anomalies. BJOG: An Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;108(8):791-7.

Zhang Y, Zhao YY, Jie Q. Obstetric outcome of women with uterine anomalies in China. Chin Med J. 2010;123(4):418-22.

Grimbizis GF, Gordts S, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Brucker S, De Angelis C, Gergolet M, et al. The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Human Reprod. 2013;28(8):2032-44.

Chatterji J, Alexander C, Jalais A. The Bengal diaspora: Rethink Muslim Migration. Routledge. 2015.

Strübbe EH, Willemsen WN, Lemmens JA, Thijn CJ, Rolland R. Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome: distinction between two forms based on excretory urographic, sonographic, and laparoscopic findings. AJR. Am J Roentgenol. 1993;160(2):331-4.