Muller ducts abnormalities, prevalence at the Medellín General Hospital (2000-2005)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18597/rcog.506Keywords:
Müller conduits, anomaly, prevalence, signs and symptomsAbstract
Objectives: Determining the prevalence and clinical characteristics of patients with Müllerian malformations consulting a third-level hospital.
Methodology: A cross-sectional study of patients diagnosed with Müllerian malformations at the Medellín General Hospital between 2000 and 2005.
Results: 39 out of 1,450 patients who consulted the urgency or external gynaecological services or were hospitalised fulfilled the inclusion criteria (i.e. 2.6% prevalence).
The most frequent malformations were vaginal agenesis, bicornuate uterus and vaginal partition. The most common symptoms were pelvic pain (18.7%) and amenorrhoea (14%). Transvaginal echography was the main diagnostic aid in these patients (48.7%). 38.5% of the patients received surgical treatment: neovaginal surgery, hymenoplasty, vaginal partition resection, hysteroscopy, correction during Caesarean section. Urinary infection was the most frequent complication (7.7%). 41% required up to 4 days’ hospitalization.
Conclusions: The prevalence of Müllerian malformation was 2.6%, the most frequent alterations being bicornuate uterus, agenesis and vaginal partition. Chronic pelvic pain and amenorrhoea were the most common reasons for consultation and required complementary studies for discarding this pathology.
Author Biographies
Carlos Alberto Jara-Vélez
José Manuel Rengifo-Cruz
Adriana Arango-Martínez
References
Buttram VC Jr, Gibbons WE. Mullerian anomalies: a proposed classification.(An analysis of 144 cases). Fertil Steril 1979;32:40-6.
Josso N, Imbeaud S, Picard JY, Cate R. The gene for anti-müllerian hormone. En: Wachtel S. Molecular Genetics of Sex Determination. San Diego: Academic Press; 1994. p. 439-55.
MacLaughlin DT, Levin RK, Catlin EA, Taylor LA, Preffer FI, Donahoe PK. Identification of mullerian inhibiting substance specific binding in human cell lines. Horm Metab Res 1992;24:570-5.
Case AM, Pierson RA. Clinical use of sonohysterography in the evaluation of infertility. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2003;25:641-8.
Merviel P, Mergui JL, Sananes S, Antoine JM, Salat-Baroux J, Uzan S. [Role of hysteroscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of infertility]. Presse Med 2000;29:1302-10.
Pérez-Villabona CM, Jaimes H, Alarcón MA, Parra CP, Maldonado H, Blanc B, et al. Malformaciones uterinas y fertilización in-vitro: resultados después de histeroplastia histeroscópica. Rev Colomb Obstet Ginecol 1999;50:163-70.
Ortiz O, Luzuriaga MI. Anomalías congénitas del útero. Revista Científica Colegio Médico del Guayas 2002; 2(2). Disponible en: http://www.medicosecuador.com/revistacmg/vol2num2-2002/anomalias_congenitas.html
Ferrandez Longas A, Ferrandez Arenas J. Intersexual Status. Disorders of Sex Differentiation. Barcelona: Doyma; 1994. p. 216-18.
American Society of Reproductive Medicine. [homepage on the Internet]. The American Fertility Society Classification of Mullerian Anomalies. [Visitado 2006 Abril 5]. Disponible en: http://www.asrm.org/Literature/classifications/mullerian_anomalies.pdf
Tarry WF, Duckett JW, Stephens FD. The Mayer-Rokitansky syndrome: pathogenesis, classification and management. J Urol 1986;136:648-52.
Varner RE, Younger JB, Blackwell RE. Mullerian dysgenesis. J Reprod Med 1985;30:443-50.
Byrne J, Nussbaum-Blask A, Taylor WS, Rubin A, Hill M, O’Donnell R, et al. Prevalence of Mullerian duct anomalies detected at ultrasound. Am J Med Genet 2000;94:9-12.
Golan A, Langer R, Bukovsky I, Caspi E. Congenital anomalies of the mullerian system. Fertil Steril 1989;51:747-55.
Pinsonneault O, Goldstein DP. Obstructing malformations of the uterus and vagina. Fertil Steril 1985;44:241-7.
Colacurci N, De Franciscis P, Fornaro F, Fortunato N, Perino A. The significance of hysteroscopic treatment of congenital uterine malformations. Reprod Biomed Online 2002;4 Suppl 3:52-4.
Green LK, Harris RE. Uterine anomalies. Frequency of diagnosis and associated obstetric complications. Obstet Gynecol 1976;47:427-9.
Jurkovic D, Geipel A, Gruboeck K, Jauniaux E, Natucci M, Campbell S. Three-dimensional ultrasound for the assessment of uterine anatomy and detection of congenital anomalies: a comparison with hysterosalpingography and two-dimensional sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995;5:233-7.
Raga F, Bonilla-Musoles F, Blanes J, Osborne NG. Congenital Mullerian anomalies: diagnostic accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound. Fertil Steril 1996;65:523-8.
Simon C, Martinez L, Pardo F, Tortajada M, Pellicer A. Mullerian defects in women with normal reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril 1991;56:1192-3.
Snidjers R, Nicolaides K. Ultrasound markers for fetal chromosomal defects. En: Nicolaides K (ed). Frontiers in fetal medicine series. London: The Parthenon Publishing Group; 1996
Troiano RN, McCarthy SM. Mullerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues. Radiology 2004;233:19-34.
Ginecobstetricia 2000. [homepage on the Internet]. Temas en reproducción humana. Cirugía en infertilidad. [Visitado 2006 Abril 5] Disponible en: http://espanol.geocities.com/ginecobstetricia2000/cirugia.html
Sociedad Española de Cirugía Plástica Reparadora y Estética. [homepage on the Internet]. Malformaciones congénitas del aparato genital externo femenino. Reconstrucción de la vulva. [Visitado en 2006 Abril 5] Disponible en: http://www.secpre.org/documentos%20manual%2083.html
Emedicine. [homepage on the Internet]. Surgical Management of Mullerian Duct Anomalies. [Visitado en 2006 Abril 5] Disponible en: http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3521.htm#section~incidence_and_ prevalence
How to Cite
Downloads
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
| Article metrics | |
|---|---|
| Abstract views | |
| Galley vies | |
| PDF Views | |
| HTML views | |
| Other views | |
