Keywords
Mullerian anomalies
Diagnostic imaging
Magnetic resonance imaging
Ultrasonography
Diagnostic imaging
Magnetic resonance imaging
Ultrasonography
How to Cite
Velandía-Avendaño, M. C., & Sepulveda-Agudelo, J. (2018). Review of the classification and diagnosis of mullerian malformations. Médicas UIS, 31(2), 57–63. https://doi.org/10.18273/revmed.v31n2-2018007
Abstract
Mullerian malformations are a group of gynecological alterations that present a variable symptomatology, which varies between primary amenorrhea, dyspareunia, sexual dysfunction, pain, pelvic masses, endometriosis, abnormal uterine hemorrhage, infection, spontaneous recurrent abortion and premature birth, and can even be asymptomatic. It´s necessary a malformation’s classification that allows an adequate understanding, diagnosis and treatment; on the other hand, it is of vital importance the early diagnosis in the symptomatic cases that allows the appropriate surgical treatment of each anomaly, in order to avoid gynecological and obstetric complications, such as: sterility, hematoma, pyometra, ectopic gestation in rudimentary horn and Intrauterine growth restriction. The objective of this article is to present the actual classification of Mullerian malformations and to determine which image studies, according to the evidence, are the most recommended to make a suitable diagnosis of this pathology. MÉD.UIS. 2018;31(2):57-63.
References
1. Pérez LE. Anomalías Müllerianas. Revisión. Rev Fac Med. 2007;15(2):251-60.
2. Santos C, Martín M. Hallazgos en resonancia magnética de las malformaciones uterovaginales: datos imprescindibles previos a una intervención quirúrgica. Rev Chil Obstet Ginecol. 2015;80(1):84-90
3. Jáuregui RA, Fuentes JA. Estado actual de la clasificación, diagnóstico y tratamiento de las malformaciones müllerianas. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2013;81(1):34-46
4. López-Clavijo CA, De los Ríos LF, Ibatá JM. Prevalencia de anomalías müllerianas en un centro de medicina reproductiva. Rev CES Med 2012; 26(2): 155-64.
5. Jara-Vélez CA, Rengifo-Cruz JM, Arango-Martínez A. Prevalencia de anomalías de los conductos de müller en el hospital general de Medellín (2000-2005). Revista Colombiana de Obstetricia y Ginecología. 2006;57(2):82-7.
6. Beguería R, Checa MA, Castillo M, Del-Amo E, Carreras R. Malformaciones Müllerianas: Clasificación, Diagnóstico y Manejo. Ginecol Obstet Clin. 2009;10(3):165-9.
7. Rojas M, Prieto R. Embriología Del Sistema Genital Femenino. Int. J. Med. Surg. Sci. 2014,1(2):153-66.
8. Fernández M, Pardo M, Leal E, García M, Moral J. Útero unicorne con cuerno rudimentario no comunicante en la adolescencia. Prog Obstet Ginecol. 2012;55(3):146-9.
9. Acién P, Acién M. The presentation and management of complex female genital malformations. Hum Reprod Update.2016;22(1):48–69.
10. Grimbizis G, Campo R. Congenital malformations of the female genital tract: the need for a new classification system. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(2):401-7.
11. Buttram VC Jr, Gibbons WE. Müllerian Anomalies: A Proposed Classification (An Analysis of 144 Cases). Fertil Steril. 1979;32(1):40-6.
12. The American Fertility Society. The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, müllerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril. 1988;49(6):944-55.
13. Acién P, Acién M, Sánchez-Ferrer M. Complex malformations of the female genital tract. New types and revision of classification. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(10):2377-84.
14. Oppelt P, Renner SP, Brucker S, Strissel PL, et al. The VCUAM (Vagina Cervix Uterus Adnex Associated Malformation) Classification: a new classification for genital malformations. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(5):1493-7.
15. Grimbizis GF, Gordts S, Di SpiezioSardo A, Brucker S, De Angelis C, Gergolet M Et al. The Eshre/Esge Consensus On The Classification Of Female Genital Tract Congenital Anomalies. Human Reproduction 2013; 28(8):2032–44.
16. Grimbizis G, Campo R Di, Spiezio Sardo A, et al. Clinical approach for the classification of congenital uterine malformations. Gynecol Surg. 2012;9(2):119-29.
17. Rackow B. Congenital Uterine Anomalies. Ultrasound Imaging in Reproductive Medicine. 2013;101-115.
18. Wu MH, Hsu CC, Huang KE. Detection of congenital müllerian duct anomalies using three-dimensional ultrasound. J Clin Ultrasound. 1997;25(9):487-92.
19. Sepúlveda-Agudelo J, Cristancho-Solano M, Blanco-Fuentes L. Histerosonografía experiencia en el Hospital Universitario de Santander. Rev. Univ. Ind. Santander. Salud. 2010;42(3): 256-60.
20. Deutch TD, Abuhamad AZ. The Role Of 3-Dimensional Ultrasonography And Magnetic Resonance Imaging In The Diagnosis Of Müllerian Duct Anomalies: a review of the literature. J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27(3):413-23.
21. Saravelos SH, Cocksedge KA, Li TC. Prevalence and diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies in women with reproductive failure: a critical appraisal. Hum Reproduct Update. 2008;14(5):415-29.
22. Sociedad Española De Ginecología y Obstetricia. Anomalías Congénitas Del Útero (Actualizado Febrero 2013). Prog Obstet Ginecol. 2014;57(4):191-200
23. Berger A, Batzer F, Lev-Toaff A, Berry-Roberts C. Diagnostic imaging modalities for Müllerian anomalies: the case for a new gold standard. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(3):335-45
24. El-Huseiny A, Ahmad R, Sadek S, Gouhar G, Dawood H. Role of three-dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of double uterine cavity anomalies and concordance with laparoscopic and hysteroscopic diagnosis. The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine. 2014;45(2):555-60.
25. Cortés DK, Juárez PM, Vázquez J, Vázquez AD. Síndrome De Hemivagina Obstruida Con Agenesia Renal Ipsilateral: causa inusual de piocolpos. Reporte De Caso Y Revisión Bibliográfica. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2014;82(10):711-5
26. Ergenoglu AM, Sahin Ç, Şimşek D, Akdemir A, Yeniel AÖ, Yerli H, Sendag F. Comparison of three-dimensional ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis in surgically proven Müllerian duct anomaly cases. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;197:22–6
27. Ahmadi F, Zafarani F, Haghighi H, Niknejadi M, Vosough A. Application of 3D Ultrasonography in Detection of Uterine Abnormalities. Int J FertilSteril. 2011; 4(4): 144-7.
28. Bermejo C, Martínez TP, Cantarero R, Diaz D, Pérez J, Barron E, Et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound in the Diagnosis of Mullerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging. UltrasoundObstetGynecol. 2010; 35(5): 593-601.
29. Mendoza AM, Herrera FI, Viramontes TG, Guerrero AGML. Incidencia de patología de útero y anexos diagnosticada por histerosalpingografía en el hospital general de México. Anales de Radiología México. 2009;3:201-9.
30. Medina C, AguirreJ. Revisión pictográfica de las anomalías de los conductos de Müller por resonancia magnética. Rev.chil.obst. ginecol. 2015;80(2):181-90.
31. Yoo RE, Cho JY, Kim SY, Kim SH. A systematic approach to the magnetic resonance imaging-based differential diagnosis of congenital Müllerian duct anomalies and their mimics. Abdom Imaging. 2015;40:192-206.
32. Tahira T. Mullerian duct anomalies: Presentation and Reproductive Outcome. Med J Dec 2010;17(4): 676-8.
33. Mueller G, Hussain H, Smith Y, Quint E, Carlos R, Johnson T etal. Müllerian Duct Anomalies: Comparison of MRI Diagnosis and Clinical Diagnosis. Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(6):1294-1302.
2. Santos C, Martín M. Hallazgos en resonancia magnética de las malformaciones uterovaginales: datos imprescindibles previos a una intervención quirúrgica. Rev Chil Obstet Ginecol. 2015;80(1):84-90
3. Jáuregui RA, Fuentes JA. Estado actual de la clasificación, diagnóstico y tratamiento de las malformaciones müllerianas. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2013;81(1):34-46
4. López-Clavijo CA, De los Ríos LF, Ibatá JM. Prevalencia de anomalías müllerianas en un centro de medicina reproductiva. Rev CES Med 2012; 26(2): 155-64.
5. Jara-Vélez CA, Rengifo-Cruz JM, Arango-Martínez A. Prevalencia de anomalías de los conductos de müller en el hospital general de Medellín (2000-2005). Revista Colombiana de Obstetricia y Ginecología. 2006;57(2):82-7.
6. Beguería R, Checa MA, Castillo M, Del-Amo E, Carreras R. Malformaciones Müllerianas: Clasificación, Diagnóstico y Manejo. Ginecol Obstet Clin. 2009;10(3):165-9.
7. Rojas M, Prieto R. Embriología Del Sistema Genital Femenino. Int. J. Med. Surg. Sci. 2014,1(2):153-66.
8. Fernández M, Pardo M, Leal E, García M, Moral J. Útero unicorne con cuerno rudimentario no comunicante en la adolescencia. Prog Obstet Ginecol. 2012;55(3):146-9.
9. Acién P, Acién M. The presentation and management of complex female genital malformations. Hum Reprod Update.2016;22(1):48–69.
10. Grimbizis G, Campo R. Congenital malformations of the female genital tract: the need for a new classification system. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(2):401-7.
11. Buttram VC Jr, Gibbons WE. Müllerian Anomalies: A Proposed Classification (An Analysis of 144 Cases). Fertil Steril. 1979;32(1):40-6.
12. The American Fertility Society. The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, müllerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril. 1988;49(6):944-55.
13. Acién P, Acién M, Sánchez-Ferrer M. Complex malformations of the female genital tract. New types and revision of classification. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(10):2377-84.
14. Oppelt P, Renner SP, Brucker S, Strissel PL, et al. The VCUAM (Vagina Cervix Uterus Adnex Associated Malformation) Classification: a new classification for genital malformations. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(5):1493-7.
15. Grimbizis GF, Gordts S, Di SpiezioSardo A, Brucker S, De Angelis C, Gergolet M Et al. The Eshre/Esge Consensus On The Classification Of Female Genital Tract Congenital Anomalies. Human Reproduction 2013; 28(8):2032–44.
16. Grimbizis G, Campo R Di, Spiezio Sardo A, et al. Clinical approach for the classification of congenital uterine malformations. Gynecol Surg. 2012;9(2):119-29.
17. Rackow B. Congenital Uterine Anomalies. Ultrasound Imaging in Reproductive Medicine. 2013;101-115.
18. Wu MH, Hsu CC, Huang KE. Detection of congenital müllerian duct anomalies using three-dimensional ultrasound. J Clin Ultrasound. 1997;25(9):487-92.
19. Sepúlveda-Agudelo J, Cristancho-Solano M, Blanco-Fuentes L. Histerosonografía experiencia en el Hospital Universitario de Santander. Rev. Univ. Ind. Santander. Salud. 2010;42(3): 256-60.
20. Deutch TD, Abuhamad AZ. The Role Of 3-Dimensional Ultrasonography And Magnetic Resonance Imaging In The Diagnosis Of Müllerian Duct Anomalies: a review of the literature. J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27(3):413-23.
21. Saravelos SH, Cocksedge KA, Li TC. Prevalence and diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies in women with reproductive failure: a critical appraisal. Hum Reproduct Update. 2008;14(5):415-29.
22. Sociedad Española De Ginecología y Obstetricia. Anomalías Congénitas Del Útero (Actualizado Febrero 2013). Prog Obstet Ginecol. 2014;57(4):191-200
23. Berger A, Batzer F, Lev-Toaff A, Berry-Roberts C. Diagnostic imaging modalities for Müllerian anomalies: the case for a new gold standard. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(3):335-45
24. El-Huseiny A, Ahmad R, Sadek S, Gouhar G, Dawood H. Role of three-dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of double uterine cavity anomalies and concordance with laparoscopic and hysteroscopic diagnosis. The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine. 2014;45(2):555-60.
25. Cortés DK, Juárez PM, Vázquez J, Vázquez AD. Síndrome De Hemivagina Obstruida Con Agenesia Renal Ipsilateral: causa inusual de piocolpos. Reporte De Caso Y Revisión Bibliográfica. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2014;82(10):711-5
26. Ergenoglu AM, Sahin Ç, Şimşek D, Akdemir A, Yeniel AÖ, Yerli H, Sendag F. Comparison of three-dimensional ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis in surgically proven Müllerian duct anomaly cases. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;197:22–6
27. Ahmadi F, Zafarani F, Haghighi H, Niknejadi M, Vosough A. Application of 3D Ultrasonography in Detection of Uterine Abnormalities. Int J FertilSteril. 2011; 4(4): 144-7.
28. Bermejo C, Martínez TP, Cantarero R, Diaz D, Pérez J, Barron E, Et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound in the Diagnosis of Mullerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging. UltrasoundObstetGynecol. 2010; 35(5): 593-601.
29. Mendoza AM, Herrera FI, Viramontes TG, Guerrero AGML. Incidencia de patología de útero y anexos diagnosticada por histerosalpingografía en el hospital general de México. Anales de Radiología México. 2009;3:201-9.
30. Medina C, AguirreJ. Revisión pictográfica de las anomalías de los conductos de Müller por resonancia magnética. Rev.chil.obst. ginecol. 2015;80(2):181-90.
31. Yoo RE, Cho JY, Kim SY, Kim SH. A systematic approach to the magnetic resonance imaging-based differential diagnosis of congenital Müllerian duct anomalies and their mimics. Abdom Imaging. 2015;40:192-206.
32. Tahira T. Mullerian duct anomalies: Presentation and Reproductive Outcome. Med J Dec 2010;17(4): 676-8.
33. Mueller G, Hussain H, Smith Y, Quint E, Carlos R, Johnson T etal. Müllerian Duct Anomalies: Comparison of MRI Diagnosis and Clinical Diagnosis. Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(6):1294-1302.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.