The Role of Hysteroscopy in Diagnosis and Management of Uterine Anomalies

  • Jaime FerroEmail author
  • Sunita Tandulwadkar
  • Pedro Montoya-Botero
  • Sejal Naik


Congenital Müllerian anomalies (CMA) are the result of a developmental anomaly of the Müllerian ducts because of a failure during the fusion. The estimated prevalence of CMA in the general population is around 6.7%, whereas in the infertile population is about 7.3% and 16.7% in those women with recurrent miscarriage. Arcuate and septate uteri are the most common forms of anomalies both in fertile and infertile patients. The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) created the Congenital Uterine Anomalies Group (CONUTA). The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) proposed their classification in 1988. The reason for infertility, although not fully understood, lies in the altered characteristics of the endometrium lining in the malformed uteri, ending in low implantation rates. Hysteroscopy remains the gold standard method for the evaluation of the uterine cavity, so it is of paramount importance to correctly diagnose these alterations and treat them when appropriate.


Hysteroscopy Uterine anomalies Müllerian anomalies Uterine adhesions Implantation failure 

Supplementary material

Video 7.1

Normal uterine cavity: The normal morphology of the uterine cavity is triangular with the small variants depending on the parity from the triangle isosceles to the equilateral. The normal characteristic is to be able to draw an imaginary diagonal line that goes freely from the isthmic region, immediately above the ICO, to the tubular orifice. The fundus is more or less flat and allows the hysteroscope to pass freely from horn to horn (MP4 26263 kb)

Video 7.2

Arcuate uterine cavity: When this small anomaly is associated with symptoms related to fertility alteration it is advisable to normalize the bottom of the cavity by a cut that leaves the bottom flat or slightly domed depending on the thickness of the uterine wall at this level (MP4 109327 kb)

Video 7.3

Partial uterine septum: This septum corresponds to the anomaly in which the medial septum of the cavity does not reach the internal cervical orifice. It usually occurs from the middle third but may also be of the upper third. We practice the resection of the septum with the hysteroscopic microscissors until the bottom of the cavity leaving it with the appearance slightly domed. With a 5-Fr bipolar HF tip we practice the direct and selective coagulation of the bleeding vessels to reduce the collateral thermal damage (MP4 290167 kb)

Video 7.4

Complete uterine septum: We practice the complete resection of the septum with the hysteroscopic microscissors until the bottom of the cavity leaving it with the appearance slightly domed depending on the thickness of the uterine wall at this level. With a 5-Fr bipolar HF tip we practice the direct and selective coagulation of the bleeding vessels to reduce the collateral thermal damage (MP4 210815 kb)

Video 7.5

Cervical and uterine septum: This anomaly corresponds to the presence of a uterine cavity septum along with the cervical portion and appears as a simple cervical septum as a double cervix. It can also be accompanied by a vaginal septum. A Foley catheter No. 8–10 is placed in one of the cavities of the uterus (usually the right) and the ball of the probe is inflated with 1–2 mL of methylene blue and with the hysteroscopy microscissors is practiced a cut in the septal wall at the level of the isthmus region where you can see the bulge that shows the ball. When the vaginal septum does not cause sexual dysfunction there is no need to resect it. If you have to dry it, if the wall of the cervical septum is not very thick (no more than 10 mm) it can also be dried as well as the septum of the uterine cavity (MP4 52605 kb)

Video 7.6

Second-look resection uterine septum left cervical septum: For two cycles of HTS after resection of the uterine septum we recommend the practice of the second look. It is the time to evaluate the possible remnant septum fundus of the cavity and complete the resection (MP4 104142 kb)

Video 7.7

T-shape uterine cavity: The T-shaped cavity shows the prominent side walls that give the image of tubular with narrow and deep horns. The fundus has variants with the most common type being the arcuate or septate. It can also be flat and more rarely slightly biseptate (MP4 208591 kb)

Video 7.8

Anti-adhesion acid hyaluronic acid gel: It is possible to use the acid hyaluronic gel to avoid the adhesions. The evidence is not conclusive but it is favorable (MP4 30075 kb)


  1. 1.
    Ribeiro SC, Tormena RA, Peterson TV, Gonzáles Mde O, Serrano PG, Almeida JA, Baracat EC. Müllerian duct anomalies: review of current management. Sao Paulo Med J. 2009;127:92–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Saravelos SH, Cocksedge KA, Li T-C. Prevalence and diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies in women with reproductive failure: a critical appraisal. Hum Reprod Update. 2008;14:415–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kupesic S. Clinical implications of sonographic detection of uterine anomalies for reproductive outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001;18:387–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Serensen SS. Estimated prevalence of müllerian anomalies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1988;67:441–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Valle RF, Ekpo GE. Hysteroscopic metroplasty for the septate uterus: review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20:22–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Raga F, Bauset C, Remohi J, Bonilla-Musoles F, Simón C, Pellicer A. Reproductive impact of congenital Müllerian anomalies. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:2277–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ludwin A, Ludwin I. Comparison of the ESHRE–ESGE and ASRM classifications of Müllerian duct anomalies in everyday practice. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:569–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sardo ADS, Florio P, Nazzaro G, Spinelli M, Paladini D, Di Carlo C, et al. Hysteroscopic outpatient metroplasty to expand dysmorphic uteri (HOME-DU technique): a pilot study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;30:166–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grimbizis GF, Gordts S, Sardo ADS, Brucker S, De Angelis C, Gergolet M, et al. The ESHRE–ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Gynecol Surg. 2013;10:199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    AM FERTIL S. The American Fertility Society classification of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, Mullerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril. 1988;49:944–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Valle RF, Sciarra JJ. Intrauterine adhesions: hysteroscopic diagnosis, classification, treatment, and reproductive outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1988;158:1459–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Potdar N, Gelbaya T, Nardo LG. Endometrial injury to overcome recurrent embryo implantation failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;25:561–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Coughlan C, Ledger W, Wang Q, Liu F, Demirol A, Gurgan T, et al. Recurrent implantation failure: definition and management. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;28:14–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dalton VK, Saunders NA, Harris LH, Williams JA, Lebovic DI, et al. Fertil Steril. 2006;85:1823.e1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ghahiry AA, Aliabadi ER, Taherian AA, Najafian A, Ghasemi M. Effectiveness of hysteroscopic repair of uterine lesions in reproductive outcome. Int J Fertil Steril. 2014;8:129.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Raju RG, Kumari SG, Krishna KM, Prakash GJ, Madan K. Assessment of uterine cavity by hysteroscopy in assisted reproduction programme and its influence on pregnancy outcome. Arch Gynaecol Obstet. 2006;274:160–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Di Spiezio SA, Campo R, Gordts S, Spinelli M, Cosimato C, Tanos V, et al. The comprehensiveness of the ESHRE/ESGE classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies: a systematic review of cases not classified by the AFS system. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:1046–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bozdag G, Aksan G, Esinler I, Yarali H. What is the role of office hysteroscopy in women with failed IVF cycles? Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17:410–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Urman B, Yakin K, Balaban B. Recurrent implantation failure in assisted reproduction: how to counsel and manage. A. General considerations and treatment options that may benefit the couple. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;11:371–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Tan A, Thornton JG, Coomarasamy A, Raine-Fenning NJ. Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies: a systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38:371–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fedele L, Arcaini L, Parazzini F, Vercellini P, Di Nola G. Reproductive prognosis after hysteroscopic metroplasty in 102 women: life-table analysis. Fertil Steril. 1993;59:768–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pabuçcu R, Gomel V. Reproductive outcome after hysteroscopic metroplasty in women with septate uterus and otherwise unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril. 2004;81:1675–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zlopaša G, Škrablin S, Kalafatić D, Banović V, Lešin J. Uterine anomalies and pregnancy outcome following resectoscope metroplasty. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2007;98:129–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bakas P, Gregoriou O, Hassiakos D, Liapis A, Creatsas M, Konidaris S. Hysteroscopic resection of uterine septum and reproductive outcome in women with unexplained infertility. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2012;73:321–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fernandez H, Garbin O, Castaigne V, Gervaise A, Levaillant J-M. Surgical approach to and reproductive outcome after surgical correction of a T-shaped uterus. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1730–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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;41:41–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Worldwide AAMIG. AAGL practice report: practice guidelines for the management of hysteroscopic distending media:(replaces hysteroscopic fluid monitoring guidelines. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2000; 7: 167–168.). J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20:137–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Taskin O, Sadik S, Onoglu A, Gokdeniz R, Erturan E, Burak K, et al. Role of endometrial suppression on the frequency of intrauterine adhesions after resectoscopic surgery. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2000;7:351–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yang JH, Chen MJ, Chen CD, Chen SU, Ho HN, Yang YS. Optimal waiting period for subsequent fertility treatment after various hysteroscopic surgeries. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:2092–6.e3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Polishuk WZ, Kohane S. Intrauterine adhesions: diagnosis and therapy. Obstet Gynecol Digest. 1966;8:41.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lin X, Wei M, Li TC, Huang Q, Huang D, Zhou F, et al. A comparison of intrauterine balloon, intrauterine contraceptive device and hyaluronic acid gel in the prevention of adhesion reformation following hysteroscopic surgery for Asherman’s syndrome: a cohort study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;170:512–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Deans R, Abbott J. Review of intrauterine adhesions. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2010;17:555–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bosteels J, Weyers S, Kasius J, Broekmans FJ, Mol BW, D’Hooghe TM. Anti-adhesion therapy following operative hysteroscopy for treatment of female subfertility. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;11:CD011110.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Conforti A, Alviggi C, Mollo A, De Placido G, Magos A. The management of Asherman’s syndrome: a review of literature. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2013;11:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bosteels J, Weyers S, Mol BW, D’Hooghe T. Anti-adhesion barrier gels following operative hysteroscopy for treating female infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Surg. 2014;11:113–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mais V, Cirronis MG, Peiretti M, Ferrucci G, Cossu E, Melis GB. Efficacy of auto-crosslinked hyaluronan gel for adhesion prevention in laparoscopy and hysteroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;160(1):1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ferro J, Montoya P. Innovative alternatives in the postoperative management of Asherman’s syndrome. In: Deshmukh SS, editor. Mastering the techniques in hysteroscopy. 1st ed. New Delhi, India: Jaypee; 2016. p. 431–7.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    March CM. Management of Asherman’s syndrome. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;23:63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jaime Ferro
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sunita Tandulwadkar
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • Pedro Montoya-Botero
    • 6
  • Sejal Naik
    • 7
  1. 1.IVI ValenciaValenciaSpain
  2. 2.Solo Clinic, Centre of Excellence Infertility & EndoscopyPuneIndia
  3. 3.Solo Stem Cells, Stem Cells Research & Application CentrePuneIndia
  4. 4.Department of Obstetrics & GynaecologyRuby Hall ClinicPuneIndia
  5. 5.Ruby Hall IVF & Endoscopy CentrePuneIndia
  6. 6.Reproductive Medicine at Conceptum, Unidad de Fertilidad del CountryBogotáColombia
  7. 7.Rahul Hospital & Well Women ClinicSuratIndia

Personalised recommendations