Smarter Decisions,
Better Care

UpToDate synthesizes the most recent medical information into evidence-based practical recommendations clinicians trust to make the right point of care decisions.

  • Rigorous editorial process: Evidence-based treatment recommendations
  • World-Renowned physician authors: over 5,100 physician authors around the globe
  • Innovative technology: integrates into the workflow; access from EMRs

For more information, click below.


Subscribers log in here


Clinical manifestations and diagnosis of congenital anomalies of the uterus

INTRODUCTION

Congenital anomalies of the uterus are often asymptomatic and therefore unrecognized. They may affect a young woman due to pain at the time of menarche, or a woman's obstetric and/or gynecologic health.

The classification, diagnosis, and clinical manifestations of congenital uterine anomalies will be reviewed here. Treatment of these anomalies and congenital cervical and vaginal abnormalities are discussed separately. (See "Surgical management of congenital uterine anomalies" and "Congenital cervical anomalies and benign cervical lesions" and "Diagnosis and management of congenital anomalies of the vagina".)

CLASSIFICATION

A classification system is an attempt to group by symptomatology, treatment, or prognosis. It is through use of standardized nomenclature that physicians can more accurately codify the symptomatology, treatment, and outcome of patients with uterine anomalies. Unfortunately, there is no universally accepted and interpreted classification system for uterine anomalies.

  • The American Fertility Society in 1988 produced a standard form for classification of müllerian defects (table 1 and figure 1) [1]. This descriptive form focuses largely on vertical fusion defects and, therefore, on uterine dysgenesis. Associated anomalies in the vagina, cervix, fallopian tubes, and renal system should also be noted.
  • Other classification systems have been described, such as the clinical embryological system shown in the table (table 2) [2].

INCIDENCE

Overview — The incidence of congenital uterine anomalies is difficult to determine since many women with such anomalies are not diagnosed, especially if they are asymptomatic. Uterine anomalies occur in 2 to 4 percent of fertile women with normal reproductive outcomes [3-9]. In one of the better designed studies, the uteri of 679 women with normal reproductive outcomes were evaluated with laparoscopy or laparotomy prior to tubal ligation, and then by follow-up hysterosalpingogram (HSG) five months after sterilization [3]. The incidence of congenital uterine anomalies was 3.2 percent [3]. The type and frequency of abnormality were septate uteri (90 percent), bicornuate uterus (5 percent), and didelphic uterus (5 percent).

                            

Subscribers log in here

To continue reading this article you must have access through your hospital or your group practice, log in to your personal subscription, or purchase a personal subscription. For more information, click below.
Literature review current through: Apr 2013. | This topic last updated: May 20, 2013.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2013 UpToDate, Inc.
References
Top
  1. 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; 49:944.
  2. Acién P, Acién M, Sánchez-Ferrer M. Complex malformations of the female genital tract. New types and revision of classification. Hum Reprod 2004; 19:2377.
  3. Simón C, Martinez L, Pardo F, et al. Müllerian defects in women with normal reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril 1991; 56:1192.
  4. Cooper JM, Houck RM, Rigberg HS. The incidence of intrauterine abnormalities found at hysteroscopy in patients undergoing elective hysteroscopic sterilization. J Reprod Med 1983; 28:659.
  5. Acién P. Incidence of Müllerian defects in fertile and infertile women. Hum Reprod 1997; 12:1372.
  6. Ashton D, Amin HK, Richart RM, Neuwirth RS. The incidence of asymptomatic uterine anomalies in women undergoing transcervical tubal sterilization. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 72:28.
  7. Raga F, Bauset C, Remohi J, et al. Reproductive impact of congenital Müllerian anomalies. Hum Reprod 1997; 12:2277.
  8. Jurkovic D, Gruboeck K, Tailor A, Nicolaides KH. Ultrasound screening for congenital uterine anomalies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997; 104:1320.
  9. Grimbizis GF, Camus M, Tarlatzis BC, et al. Clinical implications of uterine malformations and hysteroscopic treatment results. Hum Reprod Update 2001; 7:161.
  10. Heinonen PK. Complete septate uterus with longitudinal vaginal septum. Fertil Steril 2006; 85:700.
  11. Speroff, L, Glass, RH, Kase, NG. The uterus. In: Clinical Gynecologic Endocrinology and Infertility, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia 1999. p.148.
  12. Fedele L, Bianchi S. Hysteroscopic metroplasty for septate uterus. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1995; 22:473.
  13. Jayasinghe Y, Rane A, Stalewski H, Grover S. The presentation and early diagnosis of the rudimentary uterine horn. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105:1456.
  14. Reichman D, Laufer MR, Robinson BK. Pregnancy outcomes in unicornuate uteri: a review. Fertil Steril 2009; 91:1886.
  15. Ombelet W, Verswijvel G, de Jonge E. Ectopic ovary and unicornuate uterus. N Engl J Med 2003; 348:667.
  16. Dabirashrafi H, Mohammad K, Moghadami-Tabrizi N. Ovarian malposition in women with uterine anomalies. Obstet Gynecol 1994; 83:293.
  17. Fedele L, Bianchi S, Agnoli B, et al. Urinary tract anomalies associated with unicornuate uterus. J Urol 1996; 155:847.
  18. Fedele L, Zamberletti D, Vercellini P, et al. Reproductive performance of women with unicornuate uterus. Fertil Steril 1987; 47:416.
  19. Troiano RN, McCarthy SM. Mullerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues. Radiology 2004; 233:19.
  20. Vercellini P, Daguati R, Somigliana E, et al. Asymmetric lateral distribution of obstructed hemivagina and renal agenesis in women with uterus didelphys: institutional case series and a systematic literature review. Fertil Steril 2007; 87:719.
  21. Smith NA, Laufer MR. Obstructed hemivagina and ipsilateral renal anomaly (OHVIRA) syndrome: management and follow-up. Fertil Steril 2007; 87:918.
  22. Stassart JP, Nagel TC, Prem KA, Phipps WR. Uterus didelphys, obstructed hemivagina, and ipsilateral renal agenesis: the University of Minnesota experience. Fertil Steril 1992; 57:756.
  23. Lin PC, Bhatnagar KP, Nettleton GS, Nakajima ST. Female genital anomalies affecting reproduction. Fertil Steril 2002; 78:899.
  24. Oppelt P, von Have M, Paulsen M, et al. Female genital malformations and their associated abnormalities. Fertil Steril 2007; 87:335.
  25. Thompson DP, Lynn HB. Genital anomalies associated with solitary kidney. Mayo Clin Proc 1966; 41:538.
  26. Noumoff, JS, Heyer, S, Farber, M. The malignant potential of congenital anomalies of the paramesonephric ducts. Sem Reprod Med 1986; 4:67.
  27. Marcus S, al-Shawaf T, Brinsden P. The obstetric outcome of in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer in women with congenital uterine malformation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 175:85.
  28. Guirgis RR, Shrivastav P. Gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT) in women with bicornuate uteri. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf 1990; 7:283.
  29. Andrews MC, Jones HW Jr. Impaired reproductive performance of the unicornuate uterus: intrauterine growth retardation, infertility, and recurrent abortion in five cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982; 144:173.
  30. Ben-Rafael Z, Seidman DS, Recabi K, et al. Uterine anomalies. A retrospective, matched-control study. J Reprod Med 1991; 36:723.
  31. Ludmir J, Samuels P, Brooks S, Mennuti MT. Pregnancy outcome of patients with uncorrected uterine anomalies managed in a high-risk obstetric setting. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 75:906.
  32. Heinonen PK. Gestational hypertension and preeclampsia associated with unilateral renal agenesis in women with uterine malformations. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2004; 114:39.
  33. Green LK, Harris RE. Uterine anomalies. Frequency of diagnosis and associated obstetric complications. Obstet Gynecol 1976; 47:427.
  34. Harger JH, Archer DF, Marchese SG, et al. Etiology of recurrent pregnancy losses and outcome of subsequent pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 1983; 62:574.
  35. Jewelewicz, R, Husarni, N, Wallach, EE. When uterine factors cause infertility. Contemp Obstet Gynecol 1980; 16:95.
  36. Daly DC, Maier D, Soto-Albors C. Hysteroscopic metroplasty: six years' experience. Obstet Gynecol 1989; 73:201.
  37. Johansen K. Pregnancy in a rudimentary horn. Two case reports. Obstet Gynecol 1969; 34:805.
  38. O'LEARY JL, O'LEARY JA. RUDIMENTARY HORN PREGNANCY. Obstet Gynecol 1963; 22:371.
  39. Samuels TA, Awonuga A. Second-trimester rudimentary uterine horn pregnancy: rupture after labor induction with misoprostol. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 106:1160.
  40. Tulandi, T. Laparoscopic excision of a rudimentary uterine horn. In: Nezhat's Operative Gynecologic Laparoscopy and Hysteroscopy, 3rd ed, Nezhat, C, Nezhat, F, Nezhat, C (Eds), Cambridge University Press, New York 2008. p.363.
  41. Daskalakis G, Pilalis A, Lykeridou K, Antsaklis A. Rupture of noncommunicating rudimentary uterine horn pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 100:1108.
  42. Contreras KR, Rothenberg JM, Kominiarek MA, Raff GJ. Hand-assisted laparoscopic management of a midtrimester rudimentary horn pregnancy with placenta increta: a case report and literature review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2008; 15:644.
  43. Henriet E, Roman H, Zanati J, et al. Pregnant noncommunicating rudimentary uterine horn with placenta percreta. JSLS 2008; 12:101.
  44. Mazouni C, Girard G, Deter R, et al. Diagnosis of Mullerian anomalies in adults: evaluation of practice. Fertil Steril 2008; 89:219.
  45. Pui MH. Imaging diagnosis of congenital uterine malformation. Comput Med Imaging Graph 2004; 28:425.
  46. Shatzkes DR, Haller JO, Velcek FT. Imaging of uterovaginal anomalies in the pediatric patient. Urol Radiol 1991; 13:58.
  47. Valdes C, Malini S, Malinak LR. Ultrasound evaluation of female genital tract anomalies: a review of 64 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984; 149:285.
  48. Scanlan KA, Pozniak MA, Fagerholm M, Shapiro S. Value of transperineal sonography in the assessment of vaginal atresia. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1990; 154:545.
  49. Nussbaum, Blask, AR, Sanders, RC, Gearhart JP. Obstructed uterovaginal anomalies: demonstration with sonography. Part I: neonates and infants. Pediatr Radiol 1991; 179:79.
  50. Blask AR, Sanders RC, Rock JA. Obstructed uterovaginal anomalies: demonstration with sonography. Part II. Teenagers. Radiology 1991; 179:84.
  51. Raga F, Bonilla-Musoles F, Blanes J, Osborne NG. Congenital Müllerian anomalies: diagnostic accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound. Fertil Steril 1996; 65:523.
  52. Markham SM, Parmley TH, Murphy AA, et al. Cervical agenesis combined with vaginal agenesis diagnosed by magnetic resonance imaging. Fertil Steril 1987; 48:143.
  53. Fedele L, Dorta M, Brioschi D, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 76:593.
  54. Pellerito JS, McCarthy SM, Doyle MB, et al. Diagnosis of uterine anomalies: relative accuracy of MR imaging, endovaginal sonography, and hysterosalpingography. Radiology 1992; 183:795.
  55. Bakri YN, al-Sugair A, Hugosson C. Bicornuate nonfused rudimentary uterine horns with functioning endometria and complete cervical-vaginal agenesis: magnetic resonance diagnosis. Fertil Steril 1992; 58:620.
  56. Economy KE, Barnewolt C, Laufer MR. A comparison of MRI and laparoscopy in detecting pelvic structures in cases of vaginal agenesis. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2002; 15:101.
  57. Soares SR, Barbosa dos Reis MM, Camargos AF. Diagnostic accuracy of sonohysterography, transvaginal sonography, and hysterosalpingography in patients with uterine cavity diseases. Fertil Steril 2000; 73:406.
  58. Alborzi S, Dehbashi S, Parsanezhad ME. Differential diagnosis of septate and bicornuate uterus by sonohysterography eliminates the need for laparoscopy. Fertil Steril 2002; 78:176.
  59. Markham SM, Waterhouse TB. Structural anomalies of the reproductive tract. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 1992; 4:867.
  60. Letterie GS, Haggerty M, Lindee G. A comparison of pelvic ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging as diagnostic studies for müllerian tract abnormalities. Int J Fertil Menopausal Stud 1995; 40:34.
  61. Baramki TA. Hysterosalpingography. Fertil Steril 2005; 83:1595.
  62. Wu MH, Hsu CC, Huang KE. Detection of congenital müllerian duct anomalies using three-dimensional ultrasound. J Clin Ultrasound 1997; 25:487.
  63. Jurkovic D, Geipel A, Gruboeck K, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound for the assessment of uterine anatomy and detection of congenital anomalies: a comparison with hysterosalpingography and two-dimensional sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995; 5:233.
  64. Bermejo C, Martínez Ten P, Cantarero R, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2010; 35:593.
  65. Leung, JWT, Hricak, H. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of gynecologic disease. In: Ultrasonography in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 4th ed, Callen PW (Ed), WB Saunders, Philadelphia 2000. p. 940.