REPRODUCTIVE OUTCOME, DURATION OF PREGNANCY AND MODE OF DELIVERY AFTER HYSTEROSCOPIC METROPLASTY IN PATIENTS WITH INFERTILITY
Introduction: Reproductive outcome can be negatively affected in patients with congenital uterine anomalies (CUA), increasing the number of unsuccessful pregnancies and obstetric complications. Standard, safe and minimally invasive method for the treatment of correctible types of congenital uterine anomalies is hysteroscopic metroplasty (HM).
The aim of the study was to analyze the reproductive outcome, duration of pregnancy and mode of delivery in group of patients with infertility after hysteroscopic metroplasty.
Material and methods: We analyzed 48 patients with previous history of fetal loss (abortion) to whom hysteroscopy was done in the period of 01.11.2009 to 01.05.2013 year at the University Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology in Skopje. In patients who were diagnosed having CUA hysteroscopic metroplasty was done. Patients and their reproductive outcome were followed for a period of at least 2 years after the intervention. Reproductive outcome was followed considering pregnancy rate, fetal loss (abortion) up to 22 gestational week, rates of preterm and term deliveries, live births and mode of delivery. Statistical analysis was performed using computer software and value for the confidence interval ( 95% CI) was considered to be statistically significant with level of p<0.05.
Results: After hysteroscopic metroplasty, there was a significant decrease of the abortion rate to 13.9%, and significant increase in pregnancy rates of 86.1%. Overall pregnancy rate was 75%, and term delivery was noted in 93,6 % of the patients, with spontaneus deliveries in 58,6 %. There were no complications during the hysteroscopic metroplasty, nor during the deliveries.
Conclusion: Hysteroscopic metroplasty has a significant effect on the reproductive outcome, resulting in a large number of live births and no significant complication during consecutive pregnancy and delivery.
Speroff L, Glass RH, Kase NG. Development of the mullerian system. In: Mitchell C, eds. Clinical gynecologic endocrinology and infertility. 6th ed Baltimore, Md: Williams & Wilkins, Lippincott,, 1998; p.124.
Fedele L, Bianchi S. Hysteroscopic metroplasty for septate uterus. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 1995; 22(3):473-89.
Raga F, Bauset C, Remohi J, Bonilla-Musoles F, Simon C, Pellicer A. Reproductive impact of congenital Mullerian anomalies.Hum Reprod. 1997;12 (10):2277-81.
Chan Y.Y., 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.
Harger JH, Archer DF, Marchese SG, Muracca-Clemens M, Garver KL. Etiology of recurrent pregnancy losses and outcome of subsequent pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol. 1983;62(5):574-81.
The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal obstruction, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, mullerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions.Fertil Steril. 1988;49(6):944-55.
Grimbizis G, 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.
Grimbizis G, Camus M, Clasen K, Tournaye H, De Munck L, Devroey P. Hysteroscopic septum resection in patients with recurrent abortions or infertility. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(5): 1188-93.
Pellicer A. Shall we operate Mullerian defects? An introduction to the debate. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(7):1371-2.
Jones HW Jr. Mullerian anomalies. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(4):789-91.
Homer HA, Li T, Cooke ID. The septate uterus: a review of management and reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(1):1-14.
Suster N, Gergolet M. Does hysteroscopic metroplasty for septate uterus represent a risk factor for adverse outcome during pregnancy and labor? Gynecol Surg. 2016; 13: 37–41.
McCarthy FP, Khashan AS, North RA, et al. Pregnancy loss managed by cervical dilatation and curettage increases the risk of spontaneous preterm birth. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(12):3197–206.
Messerlian C, Maclagan L, Basso O. Infertility and the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(1):125–37.
Acien P. Reproductive performance of women with uterine malformations. Hum Reprod. 1993;8(1):122-6.
Buttram CV Jr. Mullerian anomalies and their management.Fertil Steril. 1983;40(2):159-63.
Heinonen KP, Saarikoski S, Postynen P. Reproductive performance of women with uterine anomalies. An evaluation of 182 cases. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1982;61(2):157-62.
Sendag F, Mermer T, Yucebilgin S, Oztekin K, Bilgin O. Reproductive outcomes after hysteroscopic metroplasty for uterine septum. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2010;37(4):287-9.
Nouri K, Ott J, Huber JC, Fischer EM, Stögbauer L, Tempfer CB.Reproductive outcome after hysteroscopic septoplasty in patients with septate uterus – a retrospective cohort study and systematic review of the literature Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2010,8:52. doi: 10.1186/1477-7827-8-52.
Roy KK, Singla S, Baruah J, Kumar S, Sharma JB, Karmakar D. Reproductive outcome following hysteroscopic septal resection in patients with infertility and recurrent abortions. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011;283(2):273-9.
Goldenberg RL, Culhane JF, Iams JD, Romero R. Epidemiology and causes of preterm birth. Lancet. 2008;371(9606):75–84.
Sentilhes L, Sergent F, Berthier A, Catala L, Descamps P, Marpeau L. Uterine rupture following operative hysteroscopy. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2006;34(11):1064–70.
Kayem G, Raiffort C, Legardeur H, Gavard L, Mandelbrot L, Girard G. Specific particularities of uterine scars and their impact on the risk of uterine rupture in case of trial of labor. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod. 2012;41(8):753–71.
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2016 SANAMED
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.