Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Diagnosis of Uterine Congenital Anomalies: Endoscopy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Female Genital Tract Congenital Malformations

  • 1531 Accesses

Abstract

Aim: Evaluate with the currently available data the place and possibilities of endoscopy in the diagnosis of uterine congenital anomalies. Brief description: The literature on congenital uterine anomalies is confusing due to (1) the lack of a simple, detailed classification system that clearly defines the different forms and (2) the lack of standardised diagnostic procedures for making a differential diagnosis. These problems are specifically associated with the most common abnormalities, including uterus subseptus (arcuatus) and bicorporeal. Previously, diagnosis was most frequently based on the so-called “gold standard” results from hysteroscopy and laparoscopy. However, these endoscopic techniques do not allow exact measurements, and most descriptions are based on subjective estimations of the size of the indentation of the uterine fundus. Furthermore, they lack the ability to examine the soft tissue of the uterine muscular wall. Clinical implications: Currently, indirect methods of imaging have been introduced, like 2-D ultrasound, or more specifically, 3-D ultrasound. These methods allow visualisation of the soft muscular tissue with clear delineation of the uterine contours. This approach provides the ability to make exact, objective measurements. Due to the high accuracy of the 3-D ultrasound, it will become the method of choice, preferred over laparoscopy and hysteroscopy methods, for the diagnosis of uterine congenital anomalies. However, laparoscopy and hysteroscopy will continue to be important for evaluating the more complex uterine congenital anomalies and in the diagnosis of concomitant fertility-related pathology. Open issues for further research: standardization of 3-D ultrasound measurements procedures and compare it with endoscopic findings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. 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;14:415–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Grimbizis GF, Camus M, Tarlatzis BC, Bontis JN, Dvroey P. Clinical implications of uterine malformations and hysteroscopic treatment results. Hum Reprod Update. 2001;7:161–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Green LK, Harris RE. Uterine anomalies: frequency of diagnosis and associated obstetric complications. Obstet Gynecol. 1976;47:427–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Valle RF. Clinical management of uterine factors in infertile patients. Semin Reprod Med. 1985;3:149–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ban-Frangez H, Tomazevic T, Virant-Klun I, Verdenik I, Ribic- Pucelj M, Bokal EV. The outcome of singleton pregnancies after IVF/ICSI in women before and after hysteroscopic resection of a uterine septum compared to normal controls. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;146:184–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mollo A, De Franciscis P, Colacurci N, Cobellis L, Perino A, Venezia R, et al. Hysteroscopic resection of the septum improves the pregnancy rate of women with unexplained in- fertility: a prospective controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:2628–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pabuccu R, Gomel V. Reproductive outcome after hysteroscopic metroplasty in women with septate uterus and otherwise unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril. 2004;81:1675–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Grimbizis G, Camus M, Clasen K, Tournaye H, De Munck L, Devroey P. Hysteroscopic septum resection in patients with recurrent abortions or infertility. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:1188–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. van Dongen H, Timmermans A, Jacobi CE, Elskamp T, de Kroon CD, Jansen FW. Diagnostic hysteroscopy and saline infusion sonography in the diagnosis of intrauterine abnormalities: an assessment of patient preference. Gynecol Surg. 2011;8:65–70.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Campo R, Molinas CR, Rombauts L, Mestdagh G, Lauwers M, Braekmans P, Brosens I, Van Belle Y, Gordts S. Prospective multicentre randomized controlled trial to evaluate factors influencing the success rate of office diagnostic hysteroscopy. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:258–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Brusco GF, Arena S, Angelini A. Use of carbon dioxide versus normal saline for diagnostic hysteroscopy. Fertil Steril. 2003;79:993–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Pellicano M, Guida M, Zullo F, Lavitola G, Cirillo D, Nappi C. Carbon dioxide versus normal saline as a uterine distension medium for diagnostic vaginoscopic hysteroscopy in infertile patients: a prospective, randomized, multicenter study. Fertil Steril. 2003;79(2):418–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. AAGL practice report: practice guidelines for the management of hysteroscopic distending media (Replaces hysteroscopic fluid monitoring guidelines). J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2000;7:167–8.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Bettocchi S, Selvaggi L. A vaginoscopic approach to reduce the pain of office hysteroscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1997;4:255–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Smit JG, Kasius JC, Eijkemans MJC, Veersema S, Fatemi HM, van Santbrink EJP, et al. The international agreement study on the diagnosis of the septate uterus at office hysteroscopy in infertile patients. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:2108–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kasius JC, Broekmans FJM, Veersema S, Eijkemans MJC, van Santbrink EJP, Devroey P, et al. Observer agreement in the evaluation of the uterine cavity by hysteroscopy prior to in vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:801–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Taskın EA, Berker B, Özmen B, Sönmezer M, Atabekoglu C. Comparison of hysterosalpingography and hysteroscopy in the evaluation of the uterine cavity in patients undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(2):349–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Camuzcuoglu H, Yildirim Y, Sadik S, Kurt S, Tinar S. Comparison of the accuracy of hysteroscopy and hysterosalpingography in evaluation of the uterine cavity in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss. Gynecol Surg. 2005;2:159–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Letterie GS. Management of congenital uterine anomalies. RBM Online. 2011;23:40–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Taylor E, Gomel V. The uterus and fertility. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:1–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ludwin A, Pitynski 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wu MH, Hsu CC, Huang KE. Detection of congenital Müllerian duct anomalies using three-dimensional ultrasound. J Clin Ultrasound. 1997;25:487–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Makris N, Kalmantis K, Skartados N, Papadimitriou A, Mantzaris G, Antsaklis A. Three-dimensional hysterosonography versus hysteroscopy for the detection of intracavitary uterine abnormalities. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007;97:6–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 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;10:199–212.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Grimbizis GF, Campo R. On behalf of the Scientific Committee of the Congenital Uterine Malformations (CONUTA) common ESHRE/ESGE working group: Gordts S, Brucker S, Gergolet M, Tanos V, Li T-C, De Angelis C, Di Spiezio Sardo A. Clinical approach for the classification of congenital uterine malformations. Gynecol Surg. 2012;9:119–29.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Jansen FW, Vredevoogd CB, van Ulzen K, Hermans J, Trimbos JB, Trimbos-Kemper TC. Complications of hysteroscopy: a prospective, multicenter study. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;96(2):266–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Behr SC, Courtier JL, Qayyum A. Imaging of müllerian duct anomalies. Radiographics. 2012;32:233–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Dabirashrafi H, Mohammad K, Moghadami-Tabrizi N. Ovarian malposition in women with uterine anomalies. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;83:293–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ombelet W, Grieten M, DeNeubourg P, Verswijvel G, Buekenhout L, Hinoul P, deJonge E. Undescended ovary and unicornuate uterus: simpli®ed diagnosis by the use of clomiphene citrate ovarian stimulation and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Hum Reprod. 2003;18:858–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Jain N, Goel S. Cystic Adenomyoma simulates uterine malformation: a diagnostic dilemma: case report of two unusual cases. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2012;5:285–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Nawroth F, Rahimi G, Nawroth C, Foth D, Ludwig M, Schmidt T. Is there an association between septate uterus and endometriosis? Hum Reprod. 2006;21:542–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Fedele L, Bianchi S, Di Nola G, Franchi D, Candiani GB. Endometriosis and nonobstructive müllerian anomalies. Obstet Gynecol. 1992;79:515–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Gergolet M, Gianaroli L, Kenda Suster N, Verdenik I, Magli MC, Gordts S. Possible role of endometriosis in the aetiology of spontaneous miscarriage in patients with septate uterus. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;21:581–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Uğur M, Turan C, Mungan T, Kuşçu E, Senöz S, Ağiş HT, Gökmen O. Endometriosis in association with müllerian anomalies. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 1995;40:261–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Olive DL, Henderson DY. Endometriosis and mullerian anomalies. Obstet Gynecol. 1987;69:412–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ott J, Jaeger-Lansky A, Poschalko G, Promberger R, Rothschedl E, Wenzl R. Entry techniques in gynecologic laparoscopy—a review. Gynecol Surg. 2012;9:139–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leuven Institute for Fertility and Embryology, Tiensevest 168, Leuven, 3000, Belgium

    Stephan Gordts MD

Authors
  1. Stephan Gordts MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephan Gordts MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Medical School, Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Grigoris F. Grimbizis

  2. Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Genk Institute for Fertility Technology, Leuven, Belgium

    Rudi Campo

  3. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Medical School, Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Basil C. Tarlatzis

  4. Leuven Institute for Fertility & Embryology, Leuven, Belgium

    Stephan Gordts

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gordts, S. (2015). Diagnosis of Uterine Congenital Anomalies: Endoscopy. In: Grimbizis, G., Campo, R., Tarlatzis, B., Gordts, S. (eds) Female Genital Tract Congenital Malformations. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5146-3_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-5146-3_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-5145-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-5146-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation