The impact of diagnostic criteria on the reproducibility of the hysteroscopic diagnosis of the septate uterus: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND The prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies in high-risk women is unclear, as several different diagnostic approaches have been applied to different groups of patients. This review aims to evaluate the prevalence of such anomalies in unselected populations and in women with infertility, including those undergoing IVF treatment, women with a history of miscarriage, women with infertility and recurrent miscarriage combined, and women with a history of preterm delivery. METHODS Searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane register were performed. Study selection and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers. Studies were grouped into those that used ‘optimal’ and ‘suboptimal’ tests for uterine anomalies. Meta-analyses were performed to establish the prevalence of uterine anomalies and their subtypes within the various populations. RESULTS We identified 94 observational studies comprising 89 861 women. The prevalence of uterine anomalies diagnosed by optimal tests was 5.5% [95% confidence interval (CI), 3.5–8.5] in the unselected population, 8.0% (95% CI, 5.3–12) in infertile women, 13.3% (95% CI, 8.9–20.0) in those with a history of miscarriage and 24.5% (95% CI, 18.3–32.8) in those with miscarriage and infertility. Arcuate uterus is most common in the unselected population (3.9%; 95% CI, 2.1–7.1), and its prevalence is not increased in high-risk groups. In contrast, septate uterus is the most common anomaly in high-risk populations. CONCLUSIONS Women with a history of miscarriage or miscarriage and infertility have higher prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies compared with the unselected population.

This retrospective longitudinal study was undertaken in order to determine the incidence and reproductive impact of uterine malformations on women desiring to conceive during their reproductive years. A total of 3181 patients in whom the morphology of the uterus was ascertained by hysterosalpingography (HSG) and laparoscopy/laparotomy during the years 1980-1995 was included in the study. The population analysed included fertile, infertile and sterile patients. The overall frequency of uterine malformations was 4.0%. Infertile patients (6.3%) had a significantly (P < 0.05) higher incidence of Müllerian anomalies, in comparison with fertile (3.8%) and sterile (2.4%) women. Septate (33.6%) and arcuate (32.8%) uteri were the most common malformations observed. Each malformation was individually analysed in fertile and infertile patients, in order to ascertain its actual reproductive impact. The performance of the unicornuate and didelphys uteri was similar with a chance of having a living child of 37-40%. The reproductive potential of the bicornuate uterus showed a live birth rate of 62.5% and the septate uterus showed a live birth rate of 62%. In all these abnormalities, early miscarriages (25-38%) and preterm deliveries (25-47%) were quite common. The arcuate uterus presented a live birth rate of 82.7%. It is concluded that uterine anomalies are relatively frequent in fertile women, and more frequent in infertile patients. Nevertheless, fertile patients with normal reproductive performance do exist, and Müllerian defects can permit an absolutely normal obstetric outcome. The reproductive performance of the unicornuate and didelphys uteri was poor, while that of the septate and bicornuate uteri was better than expected. The arcuate uterus had no impact on reproduction.

While estimates of the frequency of müllerian duct anomalies vary widely owing to different patient populations, nonstandardized classification systems, and differences in diagnostic data acquisition, these anomalies are clinically important, particularly in women who present with infertility. An understanding of the differences between these uterovaginal anomalies, as outlined in the most widely accepted classification system-that published by the American Fertility Society (AFS) in 1988-is imperative given the respective clinical manifestations, different treatment regimens, and prognosis for fetal salvage. Although the AFS classification system serves as a framework for description of anomalies, communication among physicians, and comparison of therapeutic modalities, there often is confusion about appropriate reporting of certain anomalies, particularly those with features of more than one class. Many of the anomalies are initially diagnosed at hysterosalpingography and ultrasonography; however, further imaging is often required for definitive diagnosis and elaboration of secondary findings. At this time, magnetic resonance imaging is the study of choice because of its high accuracy and detailed elaboration of uterovaginal anatomy. Laparoscopy and hysteroscopy are reserved for women in whom interventional therapy is likely to be undertaken. Copyright RSNA, 2004