Accessory cavitated uterine malformation: an underdiagnosed Mullerian anomaly
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20250498Keywords:
Accessory cavitated uterine malformation, Adenomyoma, Sonographic featuresAbstract
Background: Accessory cavitated uterine malformation (ACUM) is an extremely rare Mullerian anomaly that is not yet classified by the international societies as a type of uterine malformations. Due to its rarity, it is usually misdiagnosed as adenomyoma. Objective was to provide specific sonographic features of ACUM and differentiate it from the more common adenomyoma.
Methods: Our study is a comparative retrospective study. We presented the sonographic features of 3 cases of ACUM and compared these features with the sonographic features of 10 cases of adenomyoma. All cases had scanned by 2D and 3D luteal TVUS at Habashy 4D scan centre (Alexandria; Egypt) between June 2019 and June 2024. All the 13 cases in our study were had chronic pelvic pain and dyspareunia with a lesion in the myometrium that was not matched with the whorly echotexture of myoma. We had described the sonographic characteristics of the lesion and matched them with the final diagnosis after histopathology.
Results: TVUS features of the 3 cases who had ACUM were cystic lesion within the lateral myometrial wall. Its content has ground glass echotexture. TVUS features of the 10 cases of adenomyoma were heterogeneous ill-defined solid myometrial lesion with translesional minimal flow.
Conclusions: ACUM is a rare uterine malformation that is usually misdiagnosed as adenomyoma. Distinction between these two pathologies is important as the treatment of both differ. ACUM is suggested in patients with pelvic pain when there is a myometrial cystic lesion separable from a normal uterine cavity and contained a ground-glass material.
Metrics
References
Timmerman S, Stubbe L, Van den Bosch T, Van Schoubroeck D, Tellum T, Froyman W. Accessory cavitated uterine malformation (ACUM): A scoping review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2024;103:1036-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14801
Takeuchi H, Kitade M, Kikuchi I, Kumakiri J, Kuroda K, Jinushi M. Diagnosis, laparoscopic management, and histopathologic findings of juvenile cystic adenomyoma: a review of nine cases. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:862-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.05.010
Acién P, Acién M, Fernández F, José Mayol M, Aranda I. The cavitated accessory uterine mass: a Müllerian anomaly in women with an otherwise normal uterus. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116:1101-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181f7e735
Naftalin J, Bean E, Saridogan E, Barton-Smith P, Arora R, Jurkovic D. Imaging in gynecological disease (21): clinical and ultrasound characteristics of accessory cavitated uterine malformations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021;57:821-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.22173
Batt RE. Pathogenesis of a parauterine uterus-like mass: developmentally misplaced müllerian tissue—müllerianosis. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:e45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.04.030
Ahmed AA, Swan RW, Owen A, Kraus FT, Patrick F. Uterus-like mass arising in the broad ligament: a metaplasia or Mu ̈ llerian duct anomaly? Case report. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1997;16:279-81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00004347-199707000-00015
Batt RE, Smith RA, Buck Louis GM. Müllerianosis. Histol Histopathol. 2007;22:1161-6.
Acién P, Acién M. Accessory and cavitated uterine mass versus juvenile cystic adenomyoma. F S Rep. 2021;2(3):357-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xfre.2021.06.006
Acién P, Acién MI. The History of Female Genital Tract Malformation Classifications and Proposal of an Updated System. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17:693-705. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmr021
Navarro V, Acién M, Acién P. Applicability and Suitability of the Embryological-Clinical Classification of Female Genital Malformations: A Systematic Review. J Clin Med. 2024;13(10):2988. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13102988
Acién P, Sánchez del Campo F, Mayol MJ, Acién M. The female gubernaculum: role in the embryology and development of the genital tract and in the possible genesis of malformations. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;159(2):426-32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2011.07.040
Grimbizis GF, Gordts S, Di Spiezio Sardo A. The ESHRE-ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Gynecol Surg. 2013;10:199-212. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10397-013-0800-x
Pfeifer SM, Attaran M, Goldstein J. ASRM müllerian anomalies classification 2021. Fertil Steril. 2021;116:1238-52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.09.025
Rackow BW. Accessory cavitated uterine mass: a new müllerian anomaly? Fertil Steril. 2022;117(3):649-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.01.006
Tokgoz VY, Tekin AB. A rare case of the new entity of müllerian anomalies mimicking the noncommunicating rudimentary cavity with hemi-uterus: accessory cavitated uterine mass. Fertil Steril. 2022;117(3):646-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.11.028
Jain N, Verma R. Imaging diagnosis of accessory and cavitated uterine mass, a rare mullerian anomaly. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2014;24(2):178-81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-3026.134411
Peyron N, Jacquemier E, Charlot M, Devouassoux M, Raudrant D, Golfier F, et al. Accessory cavitated uterine mass: MRI features and surgical correlations of a rare but under-recognised entity. Eur Radiol. 2019;29(3):1144-52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5686-6
Brosens I, Gordts S, Habiba M, Benagiano G. Uterine Cystic Adenomyosis: A Disease of Younger Women. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2015;28(6):420-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpag.2014.05.008
Haesen J, Santulli P, Bordonne C, Huirne J, Maitrot-Mantelet L, Marcelin L, et al. Focal what focal? - The diverse entities within focal adenomyosis. Journal of Endometriosis and Uterine Disorders. 2025;9:100099. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeud.2024.100099
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
