Volume: 9 Issue: 3
Year: 2021, Page: 8-11, Doi: https://doi.org/10.47799/pimr.0903.03
Received: Sept. 28, 2021 Accepted: Oct. 20, 2021 Published: Oct. 20, 2021
Background: Due to the high prevalence and possible impact on the reproductive health of the of woman, congenital uterine malformation of female genital tract is a challenge for the therapeutic decision-making process. The current study aimed to evaluate the morphological anomalies of the uterus as observed by modern investigation techniques.
Methods: This cross-sectional observational study was done in Prathima Institute of Medical Sciences, Nagnoor, Karimnagar, Telangana state. Women who were infertile and anxious to conceive and women were subjected to 2D ultrasound Screening followed by Hysterosalpingography. Those women who were fertile and found to have uterine anomalies and needed reconfirmation of the provisional diagnosis were subjected to Hysterosalpingography.
Results: Out of n=300 cases studied n=288 (96%) were with normal uterine anatomy and n=12 (4%) cases were detected with uterine malformations as seen by USG. N=5 (40.5%) had a Bicornuate Uterus. While uterus didelphys and unicornuate uterus were seen in n=2 (16.67%) each. Arcuate uterus, uterine septum, uterine Aplasia/Hypoplasia were seen in n=1(8.33%) women each respectively.
Conclusion: Due to the psychological consequences associated with infertility, the effects of uterine anomalies on the life of women are very important. It is critical to know the exact nature of the anomaly, to plan for the most appropriate treatment modality. As most of these anomalies cannot be rectified by medical management, they need surgical correction. For optimal results, it is important to know the exact type of anomaly for surgical correction. The 2D USG can be recommended as the basic modality to evaluate uterine anomalies. HSG/MRI may be used to delineate detail of anomalies if initially detected by the 2D scan.
Keywords: Anomalies of Uterus, 2D ultrasound scan, MRI, Hysterosalpingography
Butt, F . 2011. Reproductive Outcome in Women with Congenital Uterine Anomalies. (Vol. 17, pp. 171-177) Lahore:
Braun, P, Grau, F V, Pons, R M & Enguix, D P . 2005. Is hysterosalpingography able to diagnose all uterine malformations correctly? A retrospective study. Eur J Radiol 53:274–279.
Letterie, G S . 1998. Structural abnormalities and reproductive failure: Effective techniques of diagnosis and management. (pp. 5-10) Malden, Mass., USA. Blackwell Science:
Ajayi, A, Ajayi, , Biobaku, , Oyetunji, H, Aikhuele, , Adejuwon, & Bm, Afolabi . 2015. Pattern of Congenital Uterine Anomalies among Infertile Women with and Without Recurrent Miscarriages, in Southwest Nigeria. Critical Care Obstetrics and Gynecology 1(1):1–8.
Gogineni, S, Devi, Kjp, Vellanki, V S, Sravanthi, M & Dharmaja, D . 2013. Bicornuate Uterus with Successful Pregnancy Outcome. IOSR Journalof Dental and Medical Sciences 9:52–54.
Acien, P . 1993. Reproductive performance of women with uterine malformations. Hum Reprod 8:122–126.
Nahum, G G . 1998. Uterine anomalies. How common are they, and what is their distribution among subtypes? J reprod med 43(10):877–87.
Sotirios, H, Saravelos, Karen A, Cocksedge, Tin-Chiu & Li, . 2008. Prevalence and diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies in women with reproductive failure: a critical appraisal. Human Reprod Update 14(5):415–444.
Heinonen, P K & Pystynen, P P . 1983. Primary infertility and uterine anomalies. FertilSteril 40:311–316.
Grimbizis, G F, Camus, M, Tarlatzis, B C, Bontis, J N & Devroey, P . 2001. Clinicalimplications of uterine malformations and hysteroscopic treatmentresults. Hum Reprod Update 7:161–174.
Sanders, B . 2006. Uterine factors and infertility. J Reprod Med 51:169–176.
Taylor, E & Gomel, V . 2008. The uterus and fertility. FertilSteril 89:1–16.
Ugur, M, Karakaya, S, Zorlu, G, Arslan, S, Gulerman, C, Kukner, S & Gokmen, O . 1995. Polycystic ovaries in association with Mullerian anomalies. Eur J ObstetGynecolReprod Biol 62:57–59.
Tulandi, T, Arronet, G H & Mcinnes, R A . 1980. Arcuate and bicornuate uterineanomalies and infertility. FertilSteril 34:362–364.
Troiano, R N & Mccarthy, S M . 2004. Mullerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues. Radiology 233:19–34.
Raga, F, Bauset, C, Remohi, J, Bonilla-Musoles, F, Simon, C & Pellicer, A . 1997. Reproductive impact of congenital Mullerian anomalies. Hum Reprod 12:2277–2281.
Acien, P . 1997. Incidence of Mullerian defects in fertile and infertile women. Hum Reprod 12:1372–1376.
Li, T C, Iqbal, T, Anstie, B, Gillham, J, Amer, S, Wood, K & Laird, S . 2002. An analysis of the pattern of pregnancy loss in women with recurrent miscarriage. FertilSteril 78:1100–1106.
Wold, Devi, Pham, A S, Arici, N & A . 2006. Anatomic factors in recurrent pregnancy loss. Sem Reprod Med 24:25–32.
Hamilton, J A, Larson, A J, Lower, A M, Hasnain, S & Grudzinskas, J G . 1998. Routine use of saline hysterosonography in 500 consecutive, unselected, infertile women. Hum Reprod 13:2463–2473.
Nguyen, L, Harford, R I & Trott, E A . 1997. Evaluating Mullerian anomalies as a cause of recurrent pregnancy loss. Delaware Med J 69:209–212.
Madasi PK, Shaikh AR. Pattern of Morphological Anomalies of Uterus as Observed by Modern Investigation Techniques. Perspectives in Medical Research. 2021;9(3):8-11 DOI: 10.47799/pimr.0903.03