Structural uterine anomalies in recurrent pregnancy loss

Authors

  • Rizwana Habib Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Government Medical College Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India
  • Asma Hassan Mufti Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Government Medical College Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India
  • Nasir Jeelani Wani Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Government Medical College Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20191963

Keywords:

Hysteroscopy, Laparoscopy, Recurrent pregnancy loss, Structural uterine anomalies

Abstract

Background: To determine frequency of different structural uterine anomalies in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss.

Methods: This observational study was conducted over a period of one and half year at a tertiary care Hospital, included 40 women with recurrent pregnancy loss who underwent combined laparoscopy and hysteroscopy.

Results: Twenty-eight patients (70%) had 3 episodes of miscarriage, eight patients (20%) had experienced 4 abortions and three patients (7.5%) had five abortions. Only one patient (2.5%) had six abortions. 32.5% patients had normal hysteroscopy while as 65% patients had no abnormal finding on laparoscopy. Hysteroscopy was abnormal in 67.5% patients with uterine septum (25%) being the most common finding followed by submucous myoma(20%), polyp (12.5%), cervical incompetence (7.5%) and intra uterine adhesions (2.5%). Laparoscopy was abnormal in 35% patients with endometriosis(17.5%) being the most common finding followed by intra pelvic adhesions (15%) and bicornuate uterus (2.5%).

Conclusions: Women with recurrent pregnancy loss have increased association with structural uterine anomalies than general population. Both congenital and acquired uterine anomalies are associated with recurrent abortions.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

American society for reproductive medicine. Evaluation and treatment of recurrent pregnancy loss: a committee opinion. Fert Steril. 2012;98:1103-11.

Kiwi R. Recurrent pregnancy loss: evaluation and discussion of the causes and their management. Cleveland Clinic J Med. 2006;73(10):913.

Ford HB, Schust DJ. Recurrent pregnancy loss: etiology, diagnosis, and therapy. Reviews Obstet Gynecol. 2009;2(2):76.

Toth B, Jeschke U, Rogenhofer N, Scholz C, Würfel W, Thaler CJ, Makrigiannakis A. Recurrent miscarriage: current concepts in diagnosis and treatment. J Reprod Immunol. 2010;85(1):25-32.

Homer HA, Li TC, Cooke ID. The septate uterus: a review of management and reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(1):1-4.

Bettocchi S, Siristatidis C, Pontrelli G, Sardo AD, Ceci O, Nappi L, et al. The destiny of myomas: should we treat small submucous myomas in women of reproductive age?. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(4):905-10.

Devi Wold AS, Pham N, Arici A. Anatomic factors in recurrent pregnancy loss. Semin Reprod Med. 2006;24(1):25-32.

Saravelos SH, Cocksedge KA, Li TC. Prevalence and diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies in women with reproductive failure: a critical appraisal. Human Reprod Update. 2008;14(5):415-29.

Li TC, Makris M, Tomsu M, Tuckerman E, Laird S. Recurrent miscarriage: aetiology, management and prognosis. Human Reprod Update. 2002;8(5):463-81.

Taylor E, Gomel V. The uterus and fertility. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(1):1-6.

Ludwin A, Ludwin I, Banas T, Knafel A, Miedzyblocki M, Basta A. Diagnostic accuracy of sonohysterography, hysterosalpingography and diagnostic hysteroscopy in diagnosis of arcuate, septate and bicornuate uterus. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2011;37(3):178-6.

Ghi T, Casadio P, Kuleva M, Perrone AM, Savelli L, Giunchi S, et al. Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound in diagnosis and classification of congenital uterine anomalies. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(2):808-13.

Makris N, Kalmantis K, Skartados N, Papadimitriou A, Mantzaris G, Antsaklis A. Three‐dimensional hysterosonography versus hysteroscopy for the detection of intracavitary uterine abnormalities. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2007;97(1):6-9.

Khameneh MK. Combined hysteroscopy and laparoscopy in the evaluation of patients with recurrent pregnancy loss. Int Med J Malaysia. 2013;12(1) 33-38.

Elbareg AM, Essadi FM, Elmehashi M, Anwar KI, Adam I. Hysteroscopy in Libyan women with recurrent pregnancy loss. Sudan J Med Sci. 2014;9(4):239-44.

Ventolini G, Zhang M, Gruber J. Hysteroscopy in the evaluation of patients with recurrent pregnancy loss: a cohort study in a primary care population. Surg Endoscopy. 2004;18(12):1782-4.

Seckin B, Sarikaya E, Oruc AS, Celen S, Cicek N. Office hysteroscopic findings in patients with two, three, and four or more, consecutive miscarriages. European J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2012;17(5):393-8.

Saravelos SH, Cocksedge KA, Li TC. Prevalence and diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies in women with reproductive failure: a critical appraisal. Human Reprod Update. 2008;14(5):415-29.

Downloads

Published

2019-04-29

How to Cite

Habib, R., Mufti, A. H., & Wani, N. J. (2019). Structural uterine anomalies in recurrent pregnancy loss. International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 8(5), 2039–2043. https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20191963

Issue

Section

Original Research Articles