Hysteroscopy pp 223-230 | Cite as

Dysmorphic Uterus and Pregnancy Outcomes

  • Attilio Di Spiezio Sardo
  • Fabrizia Santangelo
  • Brunella Zizolfi
  • Marialuigia Spinelli
  • Carmine Nappi
  • Giuseppe Bifulco
Chapter

Abstract

The dysmorphic uteri are rare Müllerian anomalies which have been always underestimated, at the beginning supposed to be present only in case of history of DES exposure, and misdiagnosed due to a lack of clear diagnostic criteria. The new classification system of uterine anomalies from the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy includes the “dysmorphic” uteri, represented by T-shaped and tubular-shaped infantilis uteri, in Class U1. Such malformations have been proven to be associated with poor reproductive performance: increased risk of adverse outcomes in pregnancy, such as preterm delivery, SGA, sore fetal presentations, infertility, and miscarriage in the early ages. The novel Hysteroscopic Outpatient Metroplasty to Expand Dysmorphic Uteri (HOME-DU) technique for dysmorphic uteri is associated with a significant improvement of the reproductive outcomes. Macroscopic uterine changes seem to be also associated with variations of endometrial micro-environment.

Keywords

Office hysteroscopy Dysmorphic uterus Hysteroscopic metroplasty T-shaped uterus Tubular uterus HOME-DU technique Reproductive outcomes 

References

  1. 1.
    Rock JA, Murphy AA. Anatomic abnormalities. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1986;29:886–911.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grimbizis GF, Camus M, Tarlatzis BC, Tarlatzis BC, Bontis JN, Devroey P. Clinical implications of uterine malformations and hysteroscopic treatment results. Hum Reprod Update. 2001;7(1):161–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vallerie AM, Breech LL. Update in uterine anomalies: diagnosis, management, and outcomes. Curr Opin Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;22:381–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nappi C, Di Spiezio Sardo A. State-of-the-art hysteroscopic approach to the pathologies of the genital tract. Germany: Endo-Press; 2014.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Acien P. Incidence of Mullerian defects in fertile and infertile women. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:1372–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Saravelos SH, Cocksedge KA, Li TC. Prevalence and diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies in women with reproductive failure: a critical appraisal. Hum Reprod Update. 2008;14(5):415–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nagel TC, Malo JW. Hysteroscopic metroplasty in the diethylstilbestrol-exposed uterus and similar nonfusion anomalies: effects on subsequent reproductive performance; a preliminary report. Fertil Steril. 1993;59:502–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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;26:1730–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Berger MJ, Goldstein DP. Impaired reproductive performance in DES-exposed women. Obstet Gynecol. 1980;55:25–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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;6(17):761–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Buttram VC Jr, Gibbons WE. Mullerian anomalies: a proposed classification. (An analysis of 144 cases). Fertil Steril. 1979;32(1):40–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    The American Fertility Society. The American Fertility Society classification of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusions, tubal occlusions secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, Mullerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril. 1988;49:944–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grimbizis GF, Gordts S, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Brucker S, De Angelis C, Gergolet M, Li TC, Tanos V, Brölmann H, Gianaroli L, Campo R. The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:2032–44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kupesic S. Clinical implications of sonographic detection of uterine anomalies for reproductive outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001;18:387–400.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mazouni C, Girard G, Deter R, et al. Diagnosis of Mullerian anomalies in adults: evaluation of practice. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:219–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Byrne J, Nussbaum Blask A, Taylor W, Rubin A, Hill M, O’Donnell R, Shulman S. Prevalence of Mullerian duct anomalies detected at ultrasound. Am J Med Genet. 2000;94:9–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bettocchi S, Ceci O, Nappi L, Pontrelli G, Pinto L, Vicino M. Office hysteroscopic metroplasty: three “diagnostic criteria” to differentiate between septate and bicornuate uteri. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2007;14(3):324–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pellerito JS, McCarthy SM, Doyle MB, Glickman MG, DeCherney AH. Diagnosis of uterine anomalies: relative accuracy of MR imaging, endovaginal sonography, and hysterosalpingography. Radiology. 1992;183(3):795–800.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Woelfer B, Salim R, Banerjee S, Elson J, Regan L, Jurkovic D. Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies detected by three-dimensional ultrasound screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98:1099–103.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Colacurci N, De Franciscis P, Mollo A, Mele D, Fortunato N, Zarcone R. Preoperative GnRH analogue in hysteroscopic metroplasty. Panminerva Med. 1998;40(1):41–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Herbst AL, Hubby MM, Azizi F, Makii MM. Reproductive and gynecologic surgical experience in diethylstilbestrol-exposed daughters. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1981;141:1019–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Revel A. Defective endometrial receptivity. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:1028–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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 Investig. 1996;41:41–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Strassman E. Fertility and unification of double uteri. Fertil Steril. 1966;17:165–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cetinkaya SE, Kahraman K, Sonmezer M, Atabekoglu C. Hysteroscopic management of vaginal septum in a virginal patient with uterus didelphys and obstructed hemivagina. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(1):e16–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Homer HA, Li TC, Cooke ID. The septate uterus: a review of management and reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:1–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Di Spiezio Sardo A, Florio P, Nazzaro G, Spinelli M, Paladini D, Di Carlo C, Nappi C. Hysteroscopic outpatient metroplasty to expand dysmorphic uteri (HOME-DU technique): a pilot study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015 Feb;30(2):166–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Protopapas A, Shushan A, Magos A. Myometrial scoring: a new technique for the management of severe Asherman’s syndrome. Fertil Steril. 1998;69:860–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Attilio Di Spiezio Sardo
    • 1
  • Fabrizia Santangelo
    • 2
  • Brunella Zizolfi
    • 1
  • Marialuigia Spinelli
    • 3
  • Carmine Nappi
    • 1
  • Giuseppe Bifulco
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Public Health, School of MedicineUniversity of Naples “Federico II”NaplesItaly
  2. 2.Department of Neuroscience, Reproductive Sciences and Dentistry, School of MedicineUniversity of Naples “Federico II”NaplesItaly
  3. 3.Department of Clinical ResearchUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations