Pregnancy outcomes in women with uterine anomalies: a South Indian case series

Rakshana S.; Kanchibotla Meghana; G. N. Vasantha Lakshmi

doi:10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20251768

Authors

Rakshana S. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
Kanchibotla Meghana Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
G. N. Vasantha Lakshmi Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20251768

Keywords:

Uterine anomalies, Unicornuate uterus, Bicornuate uterus, Septate uterus

Abstract

Congenital uterine anomalies (CUAs) are important causes of adverse pregnancy outcomes, including miscarriage, malpresentation, and preterm delivery. This case series evaluates obstetric and neonatal outcomes among women with CUAs managed at a tertiary care center in South India. This case series includes seven pregnant women with confirmed uterine anomalies managed at a tertiary care center in South India between January 2023 and December 2024. The anomalies included three cases of unicornuate uterus, three bicornuate uterus, and one complete septate uterus. Six women conceived spontaneously, while one required ovulation induction. Five underwent cesarean section, one had a successful vaginal delivery, and one required emergency laparotomy for a ruptured rudimentary horn. The breech presentation was observed in two cases. Neonatal outcomes were favorable in six cases; one case resulted in neonatal loss due to uterine rupture and maternal hemorrhagic shock. CUAs are associated with increased risks of malpresentation and surgical delivery. Early diagnosis and individualized antenatal care are crucial for optimizing maternal and fetal outcomes.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

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 systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(6):761-71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmr028

Rackow BW, Arici A. Reproductive performance of women with müllerian anomalies. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;19(3):229-37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0b013e32814b0649

Edelman DA, Bijwaard KE, McIntire DD. Pregnancy outcomes in women with unicornuate uterus. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98(4):643-7.

Troiano RN, McCarthy SM. Müllerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues. Radiology. 2004;233(1):19-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2331020777

Kim MA, Kim HS, Kim YH. Reproductive, obstetric and neonatal outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Med. 2021;10(21):4797. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10214797

Chandler TM, Machan LS, Cooperberg PL, Harris AC, Chang SD. Mullerian duct anomalies: From diagnosis to intervention. Br J Radiol. 2009;82:1034-42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/99354802

Grimbizis GF, Camus M, Tarlatzis BC, Bontis JN, Devroey P. Clinical implications of uterine malformations and hysteroscopic treatment results. Hum Reprod Update. 2001;7(2):161-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/7.2.161

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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.09.006

Esh-Broder E, Simchen MJ, Hallak M. Congenital uterine anomalies and reproductive outcome. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18(2):218-25.

Heinonen PK. Unicornuate uterus and rudimentary horn. Fertil Steril. 1997;68(2):224-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(97)81506-3

Nahum GG. Rudimentary uterine horn pregnancy. The 20th-century worldwide experience of 588 cases. J Reprod Med. 2002;47(2):151-63.