Skip Navigation



Human Reproduction Update Advance Access published online on June 6, 2008

Human Reproduction Update, doi:10.1093/humupd/dmn018
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
14/5/415    most recent
dmn018v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Saravelos, S. H.
Right arrow Articles by Li, T.-C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Saravelos, S. H.
Right arrow Articles by Li, T.-C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Prevalence and diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies in women with reproductive failure: a critical appraisal

Sotirios H. Saravelos1,3, Karen A. Cocksedge1 and Tin-Chiu Li1,2

1 Reproductive Medicine and Surgery Unit, University of Sheffield, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, Jessop Wing, Tree Root Walk, Sheffield S10 2SF, UK 2 Biomedical Research Unit, Jessop Wing, Tree Root Walk, Sheffield S10 2SF, UK

To whom correspondence should be addressed at: 3 Correspondence address. E-mail: mdb04ss{at}shef.ac.uk

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies in women with reproductive failure remains unclear, largely due to methodological bias. The aim of this review is to assess the diagnostic accuracy of different methodologies and estimate the prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies in women with infertility and recurrent miscarriage (RM).

METHODS: Studies from 1950 to 2007 were identified through a MEDLINE search; all relevant references were further reviewed.

RESULTS: The most accurate diagnostic procedures are combined hysteroscopy and laparoscopy, sonohysterography (SHG) and possibly three-dimensional ultrasound (3D US). Two-dimensional ultrasound (2D US) and hysterosalpingography (HSG) are less accurate and are thus inadequate for diagnostic purposes. Preliminary studies (n = 24) suggest magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a relatively sensitive tool. A critical analysis of studies suggests that the prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies is ~6.7% [95% confidence interval (CI), 6.0–7.4] in the general population, ~7.3% (95% CI, 6.7–7.9) in the infertile population and ~16.7% (95% CI, 14.8–18.6) in the RM population. The arcuate uterus is the commonest anomaly in the general and RM population. In contrast, the septate uterus is the commonest anomaly in the infertile population, suggesting a possible association.

CONCLUSIONS: Women with RM have a high prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies and should be thoroughly investigated. HSG and/or 2D US can be used as an initial screening tool. Combined hysteroscopy and laparoscopy, SHG and 3D US can be used for a definitive diagnosis. The accuracy and practicality of MRI remains unclear.

Key words: congenital uterine anomalies / infertility / prevalence / recurrent miscarriage

Received on December 19, 2007; revised April 13, 2008; accepted on May 1, 2008


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
M. Brannstrom, C. A. Wranning, and A. Altchek
Experimental uterus transplantation
Hum. Reprod. Update, November 7, 2009; (2009) dmp049v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.