Re: Outcome of assisted reproduction in women with congenital uterine anomalies: a prospective  observational study. M. Prior, A. Richardson, S. Asif, L.  Polanski, M. Parris‐Larkin, J. Chandler, L. Fogg, P. Jassal, J. G. Thornton, N. J. Raine‐Fenning. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018; 51: 110–117.

Ludwin, Artur

doi:10.1002/uog.18971

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Scores granted by Newcastle-Ottawa Score and quality assessment using AHRQ standards are presented in Appendix 2 . Reasons for exclusion of non-included studies ( Acién, 1993 ; Acién et al, 2014 ; Airoldi et al, 2005 ; Akar et al, 2005 ; Alonso Pacheco et al, 2019 ; Ben-Rafael et al, 1990 ; Colacurci et al, 1996 ; Chen et al, 2013 ; Elsokkary et al, 2018 ; Fedele and Bianchi, 1995 ; Fox et al, 2019 ; Fox et al, 2014 ; Gabbai et al, 2018 ; Ghi et al, 2012 ; Grimbizis et al, 2001 ; Hynes et al, 2021 ; Jaslow and Kutteh, 2013 ; Lavergne et al, 1996 ; Liang and Hu, 2010 ; Ludwin, 2018 ; Maneschi et al, 1995 ; Neal et al, 2019 ; Portuondo et al, 1986 ; Raga et al, 1997 ; Ravasia et al, 1999 ; Ridout et al, 2019 ; Rogers and Needham, 1985 ; Salim et al, 2003 ; Sendag et al, 2010 ; Shuiqing et al, 2002 ; Sorensen and Trauelsen, 1987 ; Sugiura-Ogasawara et al, 2015 ; Tofoski and Antovska, 2014 ; Tomazevic et al, 2007 ; Tonguc et al, 2011 ; Woelfer et al, 2001 ; Zhang et al, 2010 ; Zupi et al, 1996 ) are described in Table SII .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of congenital uterine anomalies on obstetric and perinatal outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis

Caballero Campo,

Pérez Milán,

Carrera Roig

et al. 2024

Facts Views Vis ObGyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Congenital uterine anomalies (CUA) can be associated with impairments of early and late pregnancy events. Objective: To assess the impact of CUA on reproductive outcomes in pregnancies conceived spontaneously or after assisted reproduction. Material and Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies comparing patients with CUA versus women with normal uterus. A structured literature search was performed in leading scientific databases to identify prospective and retrospective studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale, adapted to AHRQ standards, was used to assess the risk of bias. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated. Publication bias and statistical heterogeneity were assessed, and meta-regression was used to analyse the heterogeneity. Main outcome measures: Miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, placental abruption, term, and premature rupture of membranes (PROM), malpresentation at delivery, preterm delivery prior to 37, 34 and 32 weeks, caesarean delivery, intrauterine growth restriction/small for gestational age, foetal mortality and perinatal mortality. Results: 32 studies were included. CUAs increased significantly the risk of first/second trimester miscarriage (OR:1.54;95%CI:1.14-2.07), placental abruption (OR:5.04;3.60-7.04), PROM (OR:1.71;1.34-2.18), foetal malpresentation at delivery (OR:21.04;10.95-40.44), preterm birth (adjusted OR:4.34;3.59-5.21), a caesarean delivery (adjusted OR:7.69;4.17-14.29), intrauterine growth restriction/small for gestational age (adjusted OR:50;6.11-424), foetal mortality (OR:2.07;1.56-2.73) and perinatal mortality (OR:3.28;2.01-5.36). Conclusions: CUA increases the risk of complications during pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum. Complications most frequent in CUA patients were preterm delivery, foetal malpresentation, and caesarean delivery. What is new? Bicornuate uterus was associated with the highest number of adverse outcomes, followed by didelphys, subseptate and septate uterus.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of congenital uterine anomalies on obstetric and perinatal outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis

Caballero Campo,

Pérez Milán,

Carrera Roig

et al. 2024

Facts Views Vis ObGyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Septate uterus according to ESHRE/ESGE, ASRM and CUME definitions: association with infertility and miscarriage, cost and warnings for women and healthcare systems

Ludwin

Neto

et al. 2019

Ultrasound in Obstet & Gyne

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To estimate the differences in frequency of diagnosis of septate uterus using three different definitions and determine whether these differences are significant in clinical practice, and to examine the association between diagnosis of septate uterus, using each of the three definitions, and infertility and/or previous miscarriage as well as the cost of allocation to surgery. Methods This was a secondary analysis of data from a prospective study of 261 consecutive women of reproductive age attending a private clinic focused on the diagnosis and treatment of congenital uterine malformations. Reanalysis of the datasets was performed according to three different means of defining septate uterus: following the recommendations of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), a 2016 update of those of the American Fertility Society from 1988 (ASRM‐2016: internal fundal indentation depth ≥ 1.5 cm, angle of internal indentation < 90° and external indentation depth < 1 cm); following the recommendations of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology/European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESHRE/ESGE), published in 2013 and reaffirmed in 2016 (ESHRE/ESGE‐2016: internal fundal/uterine indentation depth > 50% of uterine‐wall thickness and external indentation depth < 50% of uterine‐wall thickness, with uterine‐wall thickness measured above interostial/intercornual line); and using a definition published last year which was based on the decision made most often by a group of experts (Congenital Uterine Malformation by Experts; CUME) (CUME‐2018: internal fundal indentation depth ≥ 1 cm and external fundal indentation depth < 1 cm). We compared the rate of diagnosis of septate uterus using each of these three definitions and, for each, we estimated the association between the diagnosis and infertility and/or previous miscarriage, and anticipated the costs associated with their implementation using a guesstimation method. Results Although 32.6% (85/261) of the subjects met the criteria for one of the three definitions of septate uterus, only 2.7% (7/261) of them were defined as having septate uterus according to all three definitions. We diagnosed significantly more cases of septate uterus using ESHRE/ESGE‐2016 than using ASRM‐2016 (31% vs 5%, relative risk (RR) = 6.7, P < 0.0001) or CUME‐2018 (31% vs 12%, RR = 2.6, P < 0.0001) criteria. We also observed frequent cases that could not be classified definitively by ASRM‐2016 (gray zone: neither normal/arcuate nor septate; 6.5%). There were no significant differences (P > 0.05) in the prevalence of septate uterus in women with vs those without infertility according to ASRM‐2016 (5% vs 4%), ESHRE/ESGE‐2016 (35% vs 28%) or CUME‐2018 (11% vs 12%). Septate uterus was diagnosed significantly more frequently in women with vs those without previous miscarriage according to ASRM‐2016 (11% vs 3%; P = 0.04) and CUME‐2018 (22 vs 10%; P = 0.04), but not according to ESHRE/ESGE‐2016 (42% vs 28%; P = 0.8) criteria. Our calculations showed that gl...

show abstract

Reproductive surgery for müllerian anomalies: a review of progress in the last decade

Ludwin

Pfeifer

2019

Fertility and Sterility

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Disorders of development, fusion, or resorption of paired m€ ullerian ducts and urogenital sinus may cause various congenital malformations of the corpus uteri, cervix, vagina, and fallopian tubes. Classification systems have been developed to better characterize these anomalies, and each has advantages and disadvantages. Clinical correlation of classification of anomalies with pre-and postsurgical outcomes is needed to better direct treatment. Methods to evaluate these anomalies are primarily radiologic studies, with diagnostic surgery rarely used. Treatment of m€ ullerian anomalies used to focus on relief of symptoms. Now, as diagnostic and surgical options have expanded, preservation or improvement of reproductive potential is a primary goal. As a consequence, controversies in surgical management have also developed. Future directions in this field include better-quality studies with the use of consistent diagnostic criteria to evaluate impacts of treatment on clinical outcomes. (Fertil Steril Ò 2019;112:408-16. Ó2019 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

show abstract

Abstract: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/uog.18935/abstract

Cited by 3 publications

References 3 publications

Impact of congenital uterine anomalies on obstetric and perinatal outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis

Impact of congenital uterine anomalies on obstetric and perinatal outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis

Septate uterus according to ESHRE/ESGE, ASRM and CUME definitions: association with infertility and miscarriage, cost and warnings for women and healthcare systems

Reproductive surgery for müllerian anomalies: a review of progress in the last decade

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About