Cover Image

CASE SERIES OF PREGNANCY IN UTERINE DIDELPHS AND ITS DIVERGENT PRESENTATION

VIJAYSHREE SG

Abstract


Mullerian duct anamolies are congenital defects of the female genital system that arise from abnormal embryological development of the mullerian ducts. These abnormality can include failure of development , fusion,   canalization or reabsorption that normally occur in utero . The incidence of abnormalities ranges from 0.5 to 5 in general population. Women with congenital malformations of uterus have higher incidence of complications during pregnancy and delivery. We report three cases of pregnancy in uterine didelphs. Of which two cases are pregnancy in right sided body of didelphs uterus delivered by cesarean section and another case presented as secondary abdominal pregnancy with rupture from left sided body of uterine didelphs which was proceeded with exploratory laparotomy.

 


Full Text:

PDF

References


Sotirios H. Saravelos, Karen A. Cocksedge and Tin-Chiu Li. "Prevalence and diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies in women with reproductive failure: a critical appraisal." Human Reproduction Update 2008 ;14 (5): 415–29.

. Woelfer B., Salim R., Banerjee S., Elson J., Regan L., Jutkovic D. Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies Detected by three-dimensional ultrasound screening. Obstet Gynecol, 2001 98(6): 1099-10.

Desai BR, Patted SS, Pujar YV, et al. Advanced secondary abdominal Pregnancy following rupture of rudimentary horn. J Obstet Gynecol India 2005;55:180.

Grimbizis GF, Camus M, Tarlatzis BC, Bontis JN, Devroey P. “Clinical implications of uterine malformations and hysteroscopic treatment results” Human Reproduction Update. 2001;7(2):161-74

. Heinonen PK. “uterus diadelphys: a report of 26 cases” European journal of obstetrics & gynecology & reproductive biology. 1984;17(5):345-50.

Stassart JP, Nagel TC, Prem KA, PhippsWR. Uterus didelphys, obstructed hemivagina and ipsilateral renal agenesis: The University of Minnesota experience. Fertil Steril 1992;57:756- 61F.

Raga, C. Bauset, J. Remohi, F. Bonilla-Musoles, C. Sim´on, and A. Pellicer “Reproductive impact of congenital M¨ullerian anomalies,” Human Reproduction, vol. 12, no. 10, pp. 2277–2281, 1997.

T. M. Chandler, L. S.Machan, P. L. Cooperberg, A. C. Harris, and S. D. Chang, “M¨ullerian duct anomalies: from diagnosis to intervention,” The British Journal of Radiology, vol. 82, no. 984, pp. 1034–1042, 2009

B. Woelfer, R. Salim, S. Banerjee, J. Elson, L. Regan, and D. Jurkovic, “Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies detected by three- dimensional ultrasound screening,” Obstetrics & Gynecology, vol. 98, no. 6, pp. 1099– 1103, 2001.

. J. Ludmir, P. Samuels, S. Brooks, andM. T.Mennuti, “Pregnancy outcome of patients with uncorrected uterine anomalies managed in a high-risk obstetric setting,” Obstetrics & Gynecology, vol. 75, no. 6, pp. 906–910, 1990.

I.Maneschi, F.Maneschi, M. Parlato, G. Fuc`a, and S. Incandela, “Reproductive performance in women with uterus didelphys,” Acta Europaea Fertilitatis, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 121–124, 1989.

Green LK, Harris RE. Uterine anomalies; frequency of diagnosis and associated obstetric complications.Obstet Gynecol 1976;47: 427-429


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

An Initiative of The Tamil Nadu Dr MGR Medical University