Abstract
Aim: To compare the surgical results and reproductive Performances of patients with ESHRE/ESGE (European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology/European Society for Gynaecologic Endoscopy) class U1a and U2b uterine anomalies after hysteroscopic correction. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a university hospital infertility clinic. Ninety-six patients with class U2b (complete septate Uterus) and 78 patients with class U1a (T-shaped Uterus) uterine anomalies who underwent hysteroscopic correction between January 2009 and December 2015 were recruited. Results: The Operation time was significantly longer in class U2b anomalies (26.5 ± 5.3 minutes) than class U1a anomalies (22.8 ± 5.8 minutes; mean difference [95% confidence interval [Cl]: 3.6 ± 0.9 [1.8–5.3]; P < .001). Six out of all complete septate patients and 3 of T-shaped patients were reoperated due to postoperative synechia or to further enlarge the cavity. There were no differences between the groups regarding intraoperative (blood loss and uterine rupture) and postoperative (bleeding and infection) complications. After surgical correction, the term delivery rates increased from 3% to 71 % (P < .001) in class U2b and from 4% to 62.1 % (P < .001) in class U1a. The chance of live birth significantly increased after hysteroscopic correction both in class U2b (odds ratio [OR] 106.1; 95% Cl, 29.1–387.1; P < .001) and class U1a (OR 35.7; 95% Cl, 11.6–109.9; P < .001). The postoperative reproductive Performances of both anomalies were similar. Conclusion: Both types of anomalies seem to have similar severity and prognosis. Patients with both types of anomalies have excellent reproductive outcome after hysteroscopic correction.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Zamora J, Thornton JG, Raine-Fenning N, Coomarasamy A. The prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies in imselected and highrisk populations: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(6):761–771.
Grimbizis GF, Gordts S, Di Spiezio Sardo A, et al. The ESHRE/ ESGE consensus on the Classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(8):2032–2044.
Valle RF, Ekpo GE. Hysteroscopic metroplasty for the septate Uterus: review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(1):22–42.
Paradisi R, Barzanti R, Fabbri R. The techniques and outcomes of hysteroscopic metroplasty. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2014;26(4):295–301.
Giacomucci E, Bellavia E, Sandri F, Farina A, Scagliarini G. Term delivery rate after hysteroscopic metroplasty in patients with recurrent spontaneous abortion and T-shaped, arcuate and septate Uterus. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2011;71(3):183–188.
Fox NS, Roman AS, Stern EM, Gerber RS, Saltzman DH, Rebarber A. Type of congenital uterine anomaly and adverse pregnancy outcomes. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014;27(9):949–953.
Bendifallah S, Faivre E, Legendre G, Deffieux X, Fernandez H. Metroplasty for AFS Class V and VI septate Uterus in patients with infertility or miscarriage: reproductive outcomes study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(2):178–184.
Elter K, Yildizhan B, Suntay T, et al. Diagnostic hysteroscopy before IVF: which women are candidates? J Turkish German Gynecol Assoc. 2005;6:217–219.
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Uterine septum: a guideline. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(3):530–540.
Paradisi R, Barzanti R, Natali F, Battaglia C, Venturoli S. Hysteroscopic metroplasty in a large population of women with septate Uterus. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18(4):449–454.
Detti L, Hickman H, D’Ancona RL, Wright AW, Christiansen ME. Relevance of uterine uterine subseptations: what length should Warrant hysteroscopic resection? J Ultrasound Med. 2017;36(4):757–765.
Kaufman RH, Binder GL, Gray PM Jr, Adam E. Upper genital tract changes associated with exposure in utero to diethylstilbes-trol. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1977;128(1):51–59.
Katz Z, Ben-Arie A, Lurie S, Manor M, Insler V. Beneficial effect of hysteroscopic metroplasty on the reproductive outcome in a “T-shaped” Uterus. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 1996;41(1):41–43.
Garbin O, Ohl J, Bettahar-Lebugle K, Dellenbach P. Hysteroscopic metroplasty in diethylstilboestrol-exposed and hypoplastic Uterus: a report on 24 cases. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(10):2751–2755.
Barranger E, Gervaise A, Doumerc S, Fernandez H. Reproductive Performance after hysteroscopic metroplasty in the hypoplastic Uterus: a study of 29 cases. BJOG. 2002;109(12):1331–1334.
Fernandez H, Garbin O, Castaigne V, Gervaise A, Levaillant JM. Surgical approach to and reproductive outcome after surgical correction of a T-shaped Uterus. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(7):1730–1734.
Kupesic S, Kurjak A. Septate Uterus: detection and prediction of obstetrical complications by different forms of ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med. 1998;17(10):631–636.
Esmailzadeh S, Delavar M, Andarieh M. Reproductive outcome following hysteroscopic treatment of uterine septum. Mater Sociomed. 2014;26(6):366–371.
Dural O, Yasa C, Bastu E, et al. Reproductive outcomes of hysteroscopic septoplasty techniques. JSIS. 2015;19(4):e2015. 00085.
Ahmadi F, Zafarani F, Shahrzad GS. Hysterosalpingographic appearances of female genital tract tuberculosis part II: Uterus. Int J Fertil Steril. 2014;8(1):13–20.
Di Spiezio Sardo A, Florio P, Nazzaro G, et al. Hysteroscopic outpatient metroplasty to expand dysmorphic uteri (HOME-DU technique): a pilot study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;30(2):166–174.
Marion LL, Meeks GR. Ectopic pregnancy: history, incidence, epidemiology, and risk factors. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2012;55(2):376–386.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Şükür, Y.E., Yakıştıran, B., Özmen, B. et al. Hysteroscopic Corrections for Complete Septate and T-Shaped Uteri Have Similar Surgical and Reproductive Outcome. Reprod. Sci. 25, 1649–1654 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719118756774
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719118756774