Pregnancy in uterus didelphys delivered by caesarean delivery: case report

Authors

  • Sneha S. Rao Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, ESIPGIMSR, Bangalore, Karnataka, India
  • Anitha GS Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, ESIPGIMSR, Bangalore, Karnataka, India
  • Chandralekha P. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, ESIPGIMSR, Bangalore, Karnataka, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20162143

Keywords:

Uterine didelphys, Caesarean delivery, Mullerian duct

Abstract

Uterus didelphys represents a uterine malformation where the uterus is present as paired organ. There is presence of double uterine bodies with two separate cervices and often a double or septate vagina. Women with congenital malformations of uterus usually have higher incidence of complications during pregnancy and delivery. We report the case in our institute of a pregnancy in the left sided body of a didelphys uterus delivered by caesarean section.

References

Heinonen PK. Uterus didelphys: a report of 26 cases. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 1984;17(5):345-50.

Heinonen PK. Clinical implications of the didelphic uterus: long-term follow-up of 49 cases. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology. 2000;91(2):183-90.

Raga F, Bauset C, Remohi J, Bonilla-Musoles F, Simon C, Pellicer A. Reproductive impact of congenital Mullerian anomalies. Human Reproduction. 1997;12(10):2277-81.

Grimbizis GF, Camus M, Tarlatzis BC, Bontis JN, Devroey P. Clinical implications of uterine malformations and hysteroscopic treatment results. Human Reproduction Update. 2001;7(2):161-74.

Acen P. Reproductive performance of women with uterine malformations. Human Reproduction. 1993;8(1):122-6.

Humaira R, Sobia N, Nadia S, Asma TU. Frequency of mullerian duct abnormalities. J Rawal Med Coll. 2009;13(1):34-7.

Buttram VC, Gibbons WE. Mullerian anomalies: a proposed classification. (an analysis of 144 cases). Fertility and Sterility. 1979;32(1):40-6.

The American fertility society. The American fertility society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, mullerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertility and Sterility. 1988;49(6):944-55.

Martınez-Beltran M, Gimenez J, Acien P. Uterus didelphys with septate cervix and unilateral endometrial carcinoma: a case report. Journal of Genital System and Disorders. 2012;1(1).

Rackow BW, Arici A. Reproductive performance of women with mullerian anomalies. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;19:229-37.

Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Tan A, Thornton JG, Coomarasamy A, Raine-Fenning NJ. Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies: a systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38(4):371-82.

Braun P, Grau FV, Pons RM, Enguix DP. Is hysterosalpingography able to diagnose all uterine malformations correctly? A retrospective study. Eur J Radiol. 2005;53:274-9.

Downloads

Published

2017-02-23

Issue

Section

Case Reports