Abstract
Mullerian malformations are not uncommon. Overall incidence ranges widely between 1 in 200 women and 4 in 100 women (Chan et al. in Hum Reprod Update 17:761–771, 2011; Grimbizis et al. in Hum Reprod 28:2032–2044, 2013). Other way, these observations suggest presently an increased number of Mullerian abnormalities are diagnosed with more details, following the use of newer diagnostic modalities. Most classifications that are available have limitations. Diagnosis was based on imaging studies that had low diagnostic accuracy. It was focused mainly on the anomalies of the uterus. Less is known about the anomalies of the cervix or the vagina in isolation or in combination with the utero-cervical and vaginal malformations. Improved diagnostic modalities and incorporation of assisted reproductive technology have improved the outcome further. Therefore, a more expanded classification needs to be introduced with wider criteria for the clinicians. This will make clinicians’ approach for the management more simple.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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;17:761–71.
Grimbizis GF, Gordts G, Di Spiezio SA, et al. The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital malformations. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:2032–44.
Acien P. Embryological observations on the female genital tract. Hum Reprod. 1992;7:437–45.
Simpson JL. Genetics of the female reproductive ducts. Am J Med Genet. 1999;89:224–39.
Sotirios HS, Karen AC, Li T-C. The pattern of pregnancy loss in women with congenital uterine anomalies and recurrent miscarriage. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;20:416–22.
Kaufman RH, Binder GL, Gray PM Jr, et al. Upper genital tract changes associated with exposure in utero to diethylstilbestrol. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1977;128:51–9.
American Fertility Society. The AFS classification of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, Mullerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril. 1988;49:944–55.
Grimbizis GF, Gordts G, Di Spiezio SA, et al. The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital malformations. Gynecol Surg. 2013;10:199–212.
Grimbizis GF, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Saravelos SH, et al. The Thessaloniki ESHRE/ESGE consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(1):2–7.
Rackow BW, Arici A. Reproductive performance of women with Mullerian anomalies. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;19:229–37.
Jaffe SB, Loucopoulos A, Jewelewich R. Cytogenetics of mullerian agenesis. A case report. J Reprod Med. 1992;37:242–6.
Goodman FR, Bacchelli C, Brady AF, et al. Novel HOXA 13 mutation and the phenotypic spectrum of hand-foot-genital syndrome. Am Jr Hum Genet. 2000;67:197–202.
Brännström M, Johannesson L, Bokström H, et al. Live birth after uterus transplantation. Lancet. 2015;385(9968):607–16.
Communal PH, Chevret-Measson GF, Raudrant D. Sexuality after sigmoid colpopoiesis in patients with Mayer–Rokitansky–Kuster–Hauser syndrome. Fertil Steril. 2003;80:600–6.
Chakravorty BN, Konar H, Roychoudhury NN. Pregnancies after reconstructive surgery for congenital cervicovaginal atresia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183:421–3.
Konar H, De Banerjee M, Mukherjee S. Diagnostic Dielemma. Jr. ISOPARB, 2007.
Valle RF, Ekpo GE. Hysteroscopic metroplasty for the septate uterus: review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20:22–42.
Glacomucci E, Bellavia E, Sandri F, et al. Term delivery rate after hysteroscopic metroplasty in patients with recurrent spontaneous abortion and T-shaped, arcuate and septate uterus. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2011;71:183–8.
Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges Prof. B.N. Chakravorty, MD, FRCOG, D Sc, for his continued encouragement and the opportunity of learning from him the science of Mullerian anomalies. I thank Md Jakir Hossain for his assistance in manuscript preparation, editing and typing the manuscript.
Funding
Funding information is not applicable/no funding was received.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Ethical Standards
All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on the human participants (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from the eligible women. Additional informed consent was obtained from all individual participants for whom identifying information is included in this study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Hiralal Konar is a Professor and Head of Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Agartala Government Medical College and G. B Pant Hospital, Tripura, India; MBBS(Cal), MD(PGI), DNB, MNAMS, FACS, FRCOG(London); Member, Oncology Committee of Asia Oceania Federation of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (AOFOG): 2020–2022; FOGSI Representative: (AOFOG): 2018–2019; National Editor: Journal OB-GYN India; Editor-in-Chief, Journal ISOPARB; Chairman, Indian College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (2013); Vice President: FOGSI (2008).
Author: (A) Textbook of Obstetrics and (B) Textbook of Gynecology (please see the website: www.hiralalkonar.com).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Konar, H. Mullerian Malformations and Reconstructive Surgery: Clinicians’ Approach. J Obstet Gynecol India 71, 11–20 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-020-01400-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-020-01400-x