Advertisement

Hysteroscopy pp 103-109 | Cite as

Hysteroscopy in Complex Müllerian Anomalies

  • Nash S. Moawad
  • Estefania Santamaria
Chapter

Abstract

Müllerian anomalies include embryologic abnormalities of the uterus, cervix, and vagina, and are believed to occur secondary to the in utero disruption of the embryological development of the paramesonephric (Müllerian) ducts. The incidence of Müllerian anomalies is difficult to estimate because many patients are asymptomatic; uterine septum is the most common anomaly. A number of classification systems exist to facilitate diagnosis and treatment options. The most recently developed European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the European Society of Gynecologic Endoscopy (ESGE) system takes into account anomalies of the uterus as well as those of the cervix and vagina. Using classification systems aids in the diagnosis of anomalies through multiple imaging modalities, including magnetic resonance imaging, 3D ultrasound, and hysteroscopy. Hysteroscopy is an extremely valuable tool in assessing female reproductive organs, and its minimally invasive approach has made it a vital therapeutic tool in the outpatient setting for women. Major advances in hysteroscopic surgery and instrumentation have led to hysteroscopic septoplasty virtually replacing open surgery in recent years. Hysteroscopy is cost-effective, and patients benefit from a quick recovery, minimal complications, and good reproductive outcomes.

Keywords

Müllerian anomalies Hysteroscopy Uterine septum Vaginal septum Reproductive outcomes 

References

  1. 1.
    Patton PE, Novy MJ, Lee DM, Hickok LR. The diagnosis and reproductive outcome after surgical treatment of the complete septate uterus, duplicated cervix and vaginal septum. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190(6):1669–75. Discussion 75–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smith BC, Brown DL, Carter RE, Famuyide AO. Double cervix: clarifying a diagnostic dilemma. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(1):26.e1–5.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Emans SJH, Laufer MR. Emans, Laufer, Goldstein’s pediatric & adolescent gynecology. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Health; 2011. xviii, 585 pp.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moawad NS, Mahajan ST, Moawad SA, Greenfield M. Uterus didelphys and longitudinal vaginal septum coincident with an obstructive transverse vaginal septum. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2009;22(5):e163–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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. Gynecol Surg. 2013;10(3):199–212.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, Müllerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril. 1988;49(6):944–55.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Troiano RN. Magnetic resonance imaging of Müllerian duct anomalies of the uterus. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2003;14(4):269–79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Troiano RN, McCarthy SM. Müllerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues. Radiology. 2004;233(1):19–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Zamora J, Thornton JG, Raine-Fenning N, Coomarasamy A. The prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies in unselected and high-risk populations: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(6):761–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gergolet M. Chapter 25: Uterine malformation—general review. In: Shawki O, Deshmuk S, Pacheo LA, editors. Mastering the techniques in Hysteroscopy. New Delhi: Jaypee; 2017. p. 276.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Acien P, Acien M, Sanchez-Ferrer ML. Müllerian anomalies “without a classification”: from the didelphys-unicollis uterus to the bicervical uterus with or without septate vagina. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(6):2369–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gergolet M. Chapter 25: Uterine malformation—general review. In: Shawki O, Deshmuk S, Pacheo LA, editors. Mastering the techniques in hysteroscopy. New Delhi: Jaypee; 2017. p. 274.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Colacurci N, De Franciscis P, Fornaro F, Fortunato N, Perino A. The significance of hysteroscopic treatment of congenital uterine malformations. Reprod Biomed Online. 2002;4(Suppl 3):52–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moawad NS, Santamaria E, Johnson M, Shuster J. Cost-effectiveness of office hysteroscopy for abnormal uterine bleeding. JSLS. 2014;18(3).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Almeida ZM, Pontes R, Costa Hde L. [Evaluation of pain in diagnostic hysteroscopy by vaginoscopy using normal saline at body temperature as distension medium: a randomized controlled trial]. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2008;30(1):25–30.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Johary J, Xue M, Xu B, Xu D, Aili A. Use of hysteroscope for vaginoscopy or hysteroscopy in adolescents for the diagnosis and therapeutic management of gynecologic disorders: a systematic review. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2015;28(1):29–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Colacurci N, De Placido G, Mollo A, Carravetta C, De Franciscis P. Reproductive outcome after hysteroscopic septoplasty. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1996;66(2):147–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Colacurci N, De Placido G, Perino A, Mencaglia L, Gubbini G. Hysteroscopic septoplasty. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1998;5(2):171–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fayez JA. Comparison between abdominal and hysteroscopic septoplasty. Obstet Gynecol. 1986;68(3):399–403.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Heinonen PK. Reproductive performance of women with uterine anomalies after abdominal or hysteroscopic septoplasty or no surgical treatment. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1997;4(3):311–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Acien P. Incidence of Müllerian defects in fertile and infertile women. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(7):1372–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Homer HA, Li TC, Cooke ID. The septate uterus: a review of management and reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(1):1–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Di Spiezio Sardo A, Zizolfi B, Bettocchi S, Exacoustos C, Nocera C, Nazzaro G, da Cunha Vieira M, Nappi C. Accuracy of hysteroscopic septoplasty with the combination of presurgical 3-dimensional ultrasonography and a novel graduated intrauterine palpator: a randomized controlled trial. 23(4):557–66.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Alonso L, Rodrigo M, Duarte R. Chapter 26: Uterine septum. In: Shawki O, Deshmuk S, Pacheo LA, editors. Mastering the techniques in hysteroscopy. New Delhi: Jaypee; 2017. p. 288.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Phillips DR, Nathanson HG, Milim SJ, Haselkorn JS, Khapra A, Ross PL. The effect of dilute vasopressin solution on blood loss during operative hysteroscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;88(5):761–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Phillips DR, Nathanson HG, Milim SJ, Haselkorn JS. The effect of dilute vasopressin solution on the force needed for cervical dilatation: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(4):507–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Worldwide AAMIG, Munro MG, Storz K, Abbott JA, Falcone T, Jacobs VR, et al. 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(2):137–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sutton C. Hysteroscopic surgery. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;20(1):105–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Di Spiezio Sardo A, Spinelli M, Da Cunha Vieira M, Zizolfi B, Nappi C, Bifulco G. Review: hysteroscopy: current knowledge and future perspective. Hysteroscopic treatment of Müllerian anomalies. Minerva Ginecologica. 2016;68(2):175–85.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Romer T, Lober R. Hysteroscopic correction of a complete septate uterus using a balloon technique. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(3):478–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rock JA, Roberts CP, Hesla JS. Hysteroscopic septoplasty of the Class Va uterus with preservation of the cervical septum. Fertil Steril. 1999;72(5):942–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vercellini P, De Giorgi O, Cortesi I, Aimi G, Mazza P, Crosignani PG. Septoplasty for the complete septate uterus: does cervical sparing matter? J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1996;3(4):509–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mate P. Chapter 29: The role of endoscopy in vaginal septum. In: Shawki O, Deshmuk S, Pacheo LA, editors. Mastering the techniques in hysteroscopy. New Delhi: Jaypee; 2017. p. 315.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Di Spiezio Sardo A, Bettocchi S, Bramante S, Guida M, Bifulco G, MD, Nappi C. Office vaginoscopic treatment of an isolated longitudinal vaginal septum: A case report. 2007;14:512–515.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yu X, Yuhan L, Dongmei S, Enlan X, Tinchiu L. The incidence of post-operative adhesion following transection of uterine septum: a cohort study comparing three different adjuvant therapies. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;201:61–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Alonso L, Rodrigo M, Duarte R. Chapter 26: Uterine septum. In: Shawki O, Deshmuk S, Pacheo LA, editors. Mastering the techniques in hysteroscopy. New Delhi: Jaypee; 2017. p. 290.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Valle RF, Ekpo GE. Hysteroscopic septoplasty for the septate uterus: review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(1):22–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of Florida College of MedicineGainesvilleUSA
  2. 2.University of Florida College of MedicineGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations