Role of 3D Ultrasound in the Evaluation of Uterine Anomalies

  • Betlem Graupera
  • Maria Àngela Pascual
  • Lourdes Hereter
  • Cristina Pedrero
Chapter

Abstract

Congenital uterine anomalies, also known as Müllerian duct anomalies due to their embryological origin in Müllerian ducts, may occur at any point resulting from isolated or combined alterations involved in embryogenic development in the uterus. The prevalence of these malformations tends to vary depending on the population studied. Women with congenital uterine anomalies can be asymptomatic or can present both obstetric and gynecological symptoms, including hematocolpos and hematometra, as well as infertility and miscarriage. The most commonly used classification for uterine anomalies has been that of the American Fertility Society. Recently, the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology and the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy have established a new consensus on the classification of congenital malformations of the female genital tract. Several imaging techniques are used to diagnose uterine anomalies. Transvaginal ultrasound has been used to screen for congenital uterine anomalies. But three-dimensional ultrasound holds a distinct advantage over other techniques since they simultaneously provide information about both the external contour and the uterine cavity. Three-dimensional ultrasound has demonstrated a good level of accuracy and good interobserver agreement in the diagnosis of uterine anomalies.

Keywords

Congenital uterine anomalies Müllerian duct anomalies Ultrasound Imaging 3DUS 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Under the auspices of the Càtedra d’ Investigació en Obstetrícia i Ginecologia de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.

References

  1. 1.
    Acién P. Embryological observations on the female genital tract. Hum Reprod. 1992;7:437–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Reichman DE, Laufer MR. Congenital uterine anomalies affecting reproduction. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;24:193–208.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sadler TW. Langman Embriología Médica. Con orientación clínica, 8ª edición. Madrid: Editorial médica Panamericana; 2001.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Muller P, Musset R, Netter A, Solal R, Vinourd JC, Gillet JY. Etat du haut appareil urinaire chez les porteuses de malformations uterines. Etude de 133 observations. Presse Med. 1967;75:1331–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Zamorra 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;17:761–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    The American Fertility Society. The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal obstruction, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, mullerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril. 1988;49:944–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:2032–44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Simon C, Martinez L, Pardo F, Tortajada M, Pellicer A. Mullerian defects in women with normal reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril. 1991;56:1192–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Puscheck EE, Cohen L. Congenital malformations of the uterus. The role of ultrasound. Semin Reprod Med. 2008;26:223–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Venetis CA, Papadopoulos SP, Campo R, Gordts S, Tarlatzis BC, Grimbizis GF. Clinical implications of congenital uterine anomalies: a meta-analysis of comparative studies. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29:665–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hall-Craggs MA, Kirkham A, Creighton SM. Renal and urological abnormalities occurring with Mullerian anomalies. J Pediatr Urol. 2013;9:27–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jurkovic D, Geipel A, Gruboeck K, Jauniaux E, Natucci M, Campbell S. Three-dimensional ultrasound for the assessment of uterine anatomy and detection of congenital anomalies: comparison with hysterosalpingography and two-dimensional sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995;5:233–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fedele L, Ferrazzi E, Dorta M, Vercellini P, Candiani GB. Ultrasonography in the differential diagnosis of “double” uteri. Fertil Steril. 1988;50:361–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nicolini U, Bellotti M, Bonazzi B, Zamberletti D, Candiani GB. Can ultrasound be used to screen uterine malformations? Fertil Steril. 1987;47:89–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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;183:795–800.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Randolph JF Jr, Ying YK, Maier DB, Schmidt CL, Riddick DH. Comparison of real-time ultrasonography, hysterosalpingography, and laparoscopy/hysteroscopy in the evaluation of uterine abnormalities and tubal patency. Fertil Steril. 1986;46:828–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bermejo C, Martí nez Ten P, Cantarero R, Diaz D, Pérez Pedregosa J, Barrón E, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35:593–601.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Deutch TD, Abuhamad AZ. The role of 3-dimensional ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of müllerian duct anomalies: a review of the literatura. J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27:413–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ludwin A, Pityński K, Ludwin I, Banas T, Knafel A. Two- and three-dimensional ultrasonography and sonohysterography versus hysteroscopy with laparoscopy in the differential diagnosis of septate, bicornuate, and arcuate uteri. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20:90–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Raga F, Bonilla-Musoles F, Blanes J, Osborne NG. Congenital Müllerian anomalies: diagnostic accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound. Fertil Steril. 1996;65:523–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pascual MA, Hereter L, Graupera B, Fernández Cid M, Dexeus S. Ecografía 3D/4D en ginecología: técnica y metodología. Prog Obstet Ginecol. 2006;49:263–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Graupera B. Validación de la ecografía 3D como técnica diagnóstica de las malformaciones uterinas de origen mülleriano. Barcelona: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona; 2012.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kupesic S, Kurjak A. Septate uterus: detection and prediction of obstetrical complications by different forms of ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med. 1998;17:631–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kupesić S, Kurjak A, Skenderovic S, Bjelos D. Screening for uterine abnormalities by three-dimensional ultrasound improves perinatal outcome. J Perinat Med. 2002;30:9–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Caliskan E, Ozkan S, Cakiroglu Y, Sarisoy HT, Corakci A, Ozeren S. Diagnostic accuracy of real-time 3D sonography in the diagnosis of congenital Mullerian anomalies in high-risk patients with respect to the phase of the menstrual cycle. J Clin Ultrasound. 2010;38:123–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Faivre E, Fernandez H, Deffieux X, Gervaise A, Frydman R, Levaillant JM. Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasonography in differential diagnosis of septate and bicornuate uterus compared with office hysteroscopy and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012;19:101–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ghi T, Casadio P, Kuleva M, Perrone AM, Savelli L, Giunchi S, et al. Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound in disgnosis and classification of congenital uterine anomalies. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:808–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Momtaz MM, Ebrashy AN. Three-dimensional ultrasonography in the evaluation of the uterine cavity. Middle East Fertil Soc J. 2007;12:41–6.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wu MH, Hsu CC, Huang KE. Detection of congenital müllerian duct anomalies using three-dimensional ultrasound. J Clin Ultrasound. 1997;25:487–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Graupera B, Pascual MA, Hereter L, Browne JL, Úbeda B, Rodríguez I, et al. Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound compared with magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies using ESHRE-ESGE consensus on the classification of congenital anomalies of the female genital tract. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;46:616–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Salim R, Woelfer B, Backos M, Regan L, Jurkovic D. Reproducibility of three-dimensional ultrasound diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003;21:578–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bermejo C, Martínez-Ten P, Recio M, Ruiz-López L, Díaz D, Illescas T. Three-dimensional ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging assessment of cervix and vagina in women with uterine malformations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43:336–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    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
  34. 34.
    Grimbizis GF, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Saravelos SH, Gordts S, Exacoustos C, Van Schoubroeck D, et al. The Thessaloniki ESHRE/ESGE consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies. Gynecol Surg. 2016;13:1–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kaufman RH, Adam E, Binder GL, Gerthoffer E. Upper genital tract changes and pregnancy outcome in offspring exposed in utero to diethylstilbestrol. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1980;137:299–308.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Goldberg JM, Falcone T. Effect of diethylstilbestrol on reproductive function. Fertil Steril. 1999;72:1–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hoover RN, Hyer M, Pfeiffer RM, Adam E, Bond B, Cheville AL, et al. Adverse health outcomes in women exposed in utero to diethylstilbestrol. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(14):1304.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    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
  39. 39.
    Grimbizis GF, Camus M, Tarlatzis BC, Bontis JN, Devroey P. Clinical implications of uterine malformations and hysteroscopic treatment results. Hum Reprod Update. 2001;7:161–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Buttram VC Jr, Gibbons WE. Mullerian anomalies: a proposed classification. (An analysis of 144 cases). Fertil Steril. 1979;32:40–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Stampe Sørensen S. Fundal contour of the uterine cavity in the new syndrome of minor müllerian anomalies and oligomenorrhea. A prospective controlled study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983;145:659–67.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Troiano RN, McCarthy SM. Müllerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues. Radiology. 2004;233:19–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Frontino G, Bianchi S, Ciappina N, Restelli E, Borruto F, Fedele L. The unicornuate uterus with an occult adenomyotic rudimentari horn. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009;16:622–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Heinonen PK. Unicornuate uterus and rudimentary horn. Fertil Steril. 1997;68:224–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Liu MM. Unicornuate uterus with rudimentari horn. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1994;44:149–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Reichman D, Laufer MR, Robinson BK. Pregnancy outcomes in unicornuate uteri: a review. Fertil Steril. 2009;90:1886–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Morcel K, Camborieux L, Programme de Recherches sur les Aplasies Müllériennes, Guerrier D. Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser (MRKH) syndrome. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2007;14:2–13.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Di Spiezio Sardo A, 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Betlem Graupera
    • 1
  • Maria Àngela Pascual
    • 1
  • Lourdes Hereter
    • 1
  • Cristina Pedrero
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and ReproductionHospital Universitari DexeusBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations