Significance of hysteroscopy in diagnosis and treatment of congenital uterine anomalies
Abstract
Background/Aim. Hysteroscopy is one of the important methods in the endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of infertility, particularly at the examination of the morphology and function of the uterus. Uterine factor is present at 10% of infertile women, in which changes of the uterus can be congenital or acquired. The aim of this study was to estimate the significance of hysteroscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of congenital anomalies of the uterine cavity in patients in whom there was a reasonable suspicion for them based on prior clinical, ultrasound and hysterosalpingography (HSG) findings. The significance of hysteroscopy is considered in relation to the number of pregnancies achieved depending on the malformations in the 12 months period after the completion of the diagnostic or operational hysteroscopy. Methods. The study included 176 patients with congenital uterine anomalies, which had undergone hysteroscopy, diagnostic or operative, in the period from January 1, 2013 till January 1, 2016. Percentage of pregnancy was followed at all patients during the first 12 months after surgery. Patients were divided into two groups: the first group contained women who had pregnancy, and the second group included women who earlier were not pregnant. Their characteristics were compared, such as: age, duration of infertility, previous pregnancy and/or pregnancy loss, HSG and ultrasound findings, types of congenital anomalies, type of hysteroscopy, as well as the existence of associated pathology. Results. The mean age of patients tested in the study was 35 years. The group of patients with primary infertility had a total of 107 patients, while 69 patients were with secondary infertility. The average duration of infertility was 3 years in the studied patients. In the 12-months period, 39 of the examined women began pregnancy, which was completed with term delivery in 33 women. χ2 test showed a statistical significance difference (p < 0.05) between the groups of the patients with or without pregnancy after hysteroscopy in relation to infertility types as well as in relation to the number of previous miscarriages. Conclusion. Subseptus and septus uteri were the most common congenital uterine malformations in our patients. Very rare were uterus arquatus, uterus unicornis and uterus bicornis. In our study, 1/5 of examined women achieved pregnancy after hysteroscopy in the reporting period of 12 months, while the majority of these pregnancies ended with term delivery. The percentage of miscarriages in the examined women was reduced from 38% to 15% after hysteroscopy. In women who achieved pregnancy, uterine septum and subseptum were mostly diagnosed and in these patients hysteroscopic resection was successfully performed.
References
Jaslow CR. Uterine factors. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2014; 41(1): 57‒86.
Medrano-Uribe FA, Enríquez-Pérez MM, Reyes-Muñoz E. Preva-lence of uterine anatomical anomalies in mexican women with recurrent pregnancy loss. Gac Med Mex 2016; 152(2): 163‒6.
Ludwin A, Ludwin I. Comparison of the ESHRE–ESGE and ASRM classifications of Müllerian duct anomalies in every-day practice. Hum Reprod 2015; 30(3): 569‒80.
Gundabattula S R, Joseph E, Marakani LR, Dasari S, Nirmalan PK. Reproductive outcomes after resection of intrauterine septum. J Obstet Gynaecol2014; 34(3): 235‒7.
Siam S, Soliman BS. Combined laparoscopy and hysteroscopy for the detection of female genital system anomalies results of 3,811 infertile women. J Reprod Med 2014; 59(11‒12): 542‒6.
Shokeir T, Abdelshaheed M, El-Shafie M, Sherif L, Badawy A. Determinants of fertility and reproductive success after hysteroscopicseptoplasty for women with unexplained pri-mary infertility: a prospective analysis of 88 cases. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011; 155(1): 54‒7.
Smit JG, Overdijkink S, Mol BW, Kasius JC, Torrance HL, Eijkemans MJ, et al. The impact of diagnostic criteria on the preproducibility of the hysteroscopic diagnosis of the sep-tate uterus: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2015; 30(6): 1323–30.
Giacomucci E, Bellavia E, Sandri F, Farina A, Scagliarini G. Term delivery rate after hysteroscopic metroplasty in pa-tients with recurrent spontaneous abortion and T-shaped, arcuate and septate uterus. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2011; 71(3): 183‒8.
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(6): 665‒83.
Weiss A,Shalev E, Romano S. Hysteroscopy may be justified after two miscarriages. Hum Reprod 2005; 20(9): 2628‒31.
Bakas P, Gregoriou O, Hassiakos D, Liapis A, Creatsas M, Koni-daris S. Hysteroscopic resection of uterine septum and re-productive outcome in women with unexplained infertility. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2012; 73(4): 321‒5.
Tonguc EA, Var T, Batioglu S. Hysteroscopic metroplasty in patients with a uterine septum and otherwise unexplained infertility. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2011; 113(2): 128‒30.
Nouri K, Ott J, Huber J, Fischer EM, Stögbauer L,Tempfer C.Reproductive outcome after hysteroscopic septoplasty in patients with septate uterus – a retrospective cohort study and systematic review of the literature. Reprod Biol Endo-crinol 2010; 8: 52.
Valle RF, Ekpo GE. Hysteroscopic metroplasty for the sep-tate uterus: review and meta-analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2013; 20(1): 22‒42.
Ludwin A, Ludwin I. Reliability of hysteroscopy-based diagno-sis of septate, arcuate and normal uterus: estimate or gues-timate? Hum Reprod 2016; 31(6): 1376‒7.
Ergenoglu AM, Sahin Ç, Şimşek D, Akdemir A, Yeniel AÖ, Yerli H, et al. Comparison of three-dimensional ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis in surgically proven Müllerian duct anomaly cases. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Re-prod Biol 2016; 197: 22‒6.
Faivre E, Fernandez H, Deffieux X, Gervaise A, Frydman R, Le-vaillant 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(1): 101‒6.
Berger A, Batzer F, Lev-Toaff A, Berry-Roberts C. Diagnostic imaging modalities for Müllerian anomalies: the case for a new gold standard.J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014; 21(3): 335‒45.
Grimbizis GF, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Saravelos SH, Gordts S, Ex-acoustos C, Van Schoubroeck D, et al. The Thessaloniki ESHRE/ESGE consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies. Hum Reprod 2016; 31(1):2-7.
Imboden S, Müller M, Raio L, Mueller MD, Tutschek B. Clinical significance of 3D ultrasound compared to MRI in uterine malformations. Ultraschall Med 2014; 35(5): 440‒4.
Szkodziak P, Woźniak S, Czuczwar P, Paszkowski T, Milart P, Wozniakowska E, et al. Usefulness of three dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography and hysterosalpingography in diagnosing uterine anomalies. Ginekol Pol 2014; 85(5): 354‒9.
Ludwin A, Ludwin I, Pityński K, Banas T, Jach R. Role of mor-phologic characteristics of the uterine septum in the predic-tion and prevention of abnormal healing outcomes after hysteroscopic metroplasty. Hum Reprod 2014; 29(7): 1420‒31.
Saravelos S,Yan J, Rehmani H, Tin-Chiu Li. The prevalence and impact of fibroids and their treatment on the outcome of pregnancy in women with recurrent miscarriage. Hum Reprod 2011; 26(12): 3274‒9.
Bendifallah S, Faivre E, Legendre G, Deffieux X, Fernandez H. Metroplasty for AFS Class V and VI septate uterus in pa-tients with infertility or miscarriage: reproductive outcomes study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2013; 20(2): 178‒84.
Tomaževič T, Ban-Frangež H, Virant-Klun I, Verdenik I, Požlep B, Vrtačnik-Bokal E. Septate, subseptate and arcuate uterus de-crease pregnancy and live birth rates in IVF/ICSI. Reprod Biomed Online 2010; 21(5): 700‒5.
Elsetohy KA, Askalany AH, Hassan M, Dawood Z. Routine of-fice hysteroscopy prior to ICSI vs. ICSI alone in patients with normal transvaginal ultrasound: a randomized con-trolled trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2015; 291(1): 193‒9.
Bailey AP, Jaslow CR, Kutteh WH. Minimally invasive surgical options for congenital and acquired uterine factors associat-ed with recurrent pregnancy loss. Womens Health (Lond) 2015; 11(2): 161‒7.
Gergolet M, Campo R, Verdenik I, Kenda Suster N, Gordts S, Gianaroli L. No clinical relevance of the height of fundal in-dentation in subseptate or arcuate uterus: a prospective study. Reprod Biomed Online 2012; 24(5): 576‒82.
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Uterine septum: a guideline. Fertil Steril 2016; 106(3): 530‒40.
Freud A, Harlev A, Weintraub AY, Ohana E, Sheiner E. Repro-ductive outcomes following uterine septum resection. J Ma-tern Fetal Neonatal Med 2015; 28(18): 2141‒4.
Paradisi R, Barzanti R, Fabbri R. The techniques and out-comes of hysteroscopic metroplasty. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2014; 26(4): 295‒301.
Lin PC. Reproductive outcomes in women with uterine anomalies. J Womens Health (Larmacht) 2004; 13(1): 33‒9.
Di Spiezio Sardo A, Di Carlo C, Minozzi S, Spinelli M, Pistotti V, Alviggi C, et al. Efficacy of hysteroscopy in improving re-productive outcomes of infertile couples: a systematic re-view and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2016; 22(4): 479‒96.
Esmaeilzadeh S, Delavar MA, Andarieh MG. Reproductive out-come following hysteroscopic treatment of uterine septum. Mater Sociomed 2014; 26(6): 366‒71.
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 sys-tematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2011; 17(6): 761–71.