Table of Contents

2014 Month : November Volume : 3 Issue : 59 Page : 13323-13329

MULLERIAN DUCT ANOMALY: A CASE REPORT

Sunny Goyal1, Ankur Aggarwal2, Hemant Kumar Mishra3, Tushar Prabha4, Vipin Kumar Bakshi5

1. P. G. Resident, Department of Radiodiagnosis, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur.
2. P. G. Resident, Department of Radiodiagnosis, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur.
3. Professor and HOD, Department of Radiodiagnosis, Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur.

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Dr. Sunny Goyal,
Room No. 103, PG Hostel,
MGMCH, Sitapura,
Jaipur-302022.
Email: dr.sunnygoel@gmail.com

ABSTRACT: Tthe frequency of mullerian duct anomalies vary widely owing to different patient populations, non-standardized classification systems, and differences in diagnostic data acquisition, these anomalies are clinically important, particularly in women who present with infertility. Many of the anomalies are initially diagnosed at hysterosalpingography and ultrasonography; however, further imaging is often required for definitive diagnosis and elaboration of secondary findings. At this time, magnetic resonance imaging is the study of choice because of its high accuracy and detailed elaboration of uterovaginal anatomy. Here, we report a case of 30 years old female who presented to emergency department with bad obstetric history.

KEYWORDS: Mullerian Duct Anomalies (MDAs), USG-Ultrasonography, MRI-Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

How to cite this article

Sunny Goyal, Ankur Aggarwal, Hemant Kumar Mishra, Tushar Prabha, Vipin Kumar Bakshi. Mullerian Duct Anomaly A Case Report. Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences 2014; Vol. 3, Issue 59, November 06; Page: 13323-13329, DOI: 10.14260/jemds/2014/3774

INTRODUCTION: Müllerian duct anomalies (MDAs) are congenital abnormalities that occur when the Müllerian ducts (paramesonephric ducts) do not develop correctly. This may be as a result of complete agenesis, defective vertical or lateral fusion, or resorption failure. The most basic classification of mullerian duct defects consists of agenesis and hypoplasia, defects of vertical fusion, and defects of lateral fusion. In 1979, Buttram and Gibbons(1) proposed a classification of mullerian duct anomalies that was based on the degree of failure of normal development, and they separated these anomalies into classes that demonstrate similar clinical manifestations, treatment, and prognosis for fetal salvage.

Modified in 1988 by a subcommittee of the American Fertility Society (now the American Society of Reproductive Medicine),(2) the classification remains the most widely accepted schematization and addresses uterovaginal anomalies. Class I anomalies consist of segmental agenesis and variable degrees of uterovaginal hypoplasia. Class II anomalies are unicornuate uteri that represent partial or complete unilateral hypoplasia. Class III is composed of uterus didelphys in which duplication of the uterus results from complete non-fusion of the mullerian ducts. Class IV anomalies are bicornuate uteri that demonstrate incomplete fusion of the superior segments of the uterovaginal canal. Class V anomalies are septate uteri that represent partial or complete non resorption of the uterovaginal septum. Class VI anomalies are arcuate uteri that result from near complete resorption of the septum. Class VII anomalies comprise sequelae of in utero DES exposure.

Because of the variability and overlap of features of associated cervical and vaginal malformations, these changes generally are not incorporated into the basic schematics and are reported as a subset of the primary uterine defect. Secondary classification systems also have been introduced that further dissect and elaborate on the original Buttram and Gibbons schema. To aff           et al(3) described nine subtypes of septate and bicornuate uteri that are characterized by the presence of a communication between two otherwise separate uterocervical cavities.

 

CASE HISTORY:

—  A 30 year old female patient presented in obstetrics and gynecology dept. with complaint of bad obstetric history.

—  She had 2 preterm deliveries and 7 abortions.

—  Menstrual history was normal.

 

INVESTIGATIONS:

—  USG findings revealed two separate echogenic endometrial cavities with intervening myometrial tissue. There was evidence of fundal indentation with bulky cervix. No abnormal adnexal mass lesion noted.

—  MRI Pelvis was performed which showed evidence of two separate endometrial cavities with intervening myometrial tissue. The fundal indentation of external uterine contour between the two endometrial cavities was more than 5mm above the interostial line. There is also evidence of two separate cervices and suggestion of septum extending up till the upper vagina.

 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The mullerian duct anomalies are a group of congenital anomalies of female reproductive tract. The true incidence and prevalence of mullerian duct anomalies are difficult to assess. Examination of different patient populations, non-standardized classification systems, and differences in diagnostic data acquisition have resulted in widely disparate estimates, with a reported prevalence that ranges from 0.16% to 10%.(4–12)

The patients may be completely asymptomatic as in uterus didelphys or they may result in infertility or spontaneous abortion. Septate uterus is associated with a higher rate of reproductive failure. Hysterosalpingography and USG are the primary imaging modalities but HSG cannot always differentiate between a septate and bicornuate uterus. Conventional sonography is helpful in identifying two horns of uterus but the distinction between the above two conditions cannot be made. MRI has proved to be an accurate means of diagnosis allowing precise classification.

 

USG IMAGES:

 

USG SHOWING TWO SEPRATE ENDOMETRIAL ECHOS


TRANSVERSE USG SCAN OF UTERUS SHOWING TWO SEPRATE ENDOMETRIAL CAVITIES

 

MRI PELVIS:

—  MRI pelvis was performed which showed evidence of two separate endometrial cavities with intervening myometrial tissue.

—  The fundal indentation of external uterine contour between the two endometrial cavities was more than 5mm above the interostial line.

—  There was also evidence of two separate cervices

—  Septum seen extending up till the upper vagina.

 

 

M.R.I. PELVIS T2 AXIAL IMAGE SHOWING TWO ENDOMETRIAL CAVITIES WITH MYOMETRIUM  BETWEEN THEM


M.R.I. PELVIS T2 AXIAL IMAGE SHOWING TWO ENDOMETRIAL  CAVITIES WITH MYOMETRIUM BETWEEN THEM


M.R.I. PELVIS T1 AXIAL IMAGE SHOWING TWO ENDOMETRIAL CAVITIES WITH MYOMETRIUM  BETWEEN THEM


REFERENCES:
1.    Buttram VC, Gibbons WE. Mullerian anomalies: a proposed classification (ananalysis of 144 cases). Fertil Steril 1979; 32: 40–46.
2.    The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubalobstruction, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, mullerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril 1988; 49: 944–955.
3.    Toaff ME, Lev-Toaff AS, Toaff R. Communicating uteri: review and classification with introduction of two previously unreported types. Fertil Steril 1984; 41: 661–679.
4.    Ashton D, Amin HK, Richart RM, Neuwirth RS. The incidence of asymptomatic uterine anomalies in women undergoing transcervical tubal sterilization. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 72: 28–30.
5.    Byrne J, Nussbaum-Blask A, Taylor WS,et al. Prevalence of mullerian duct anomalies detected at ultrasound. Am J Med Genet 2000; 94: 9–12.
6.    Heinonen PK, Saarikoski S, Pystynen P. Reproductive performance of women with uterine anomalies: an evaluation of182 cases. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand1982; 61:157–162.
7.    Maneschi F, Zupi E, Marconi D, Valli E, Romanini C, Mancuso S. Hysteroscopically detected asymptomatic mullerian anomalies: prevalence and reproductive implications. J Reprod Med1995; 40: 684–688.
8.    Simon C, Martinez L, Pardo F, Tortajada M, Pellicer A. mullerian defects in women with normal reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril 1991; 56:1192–1193.
9.    Stampe Sorensen S. Estimated prevalence of mullerian duct anomalies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1988; 67: 441–445.
10.    Stray-Pedersen B, Stray-Pedersen S. Etiologic factors and subsequent reproductive performance in 195 couples with aprior history of habitual abortion. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984; 148:140–146.
11.    Rock JA, Schlaff WD. The obstetric consequences of uterovaginal anomalies. Fertil Steril 1985; 43:681–692.
12.    Green LK, Harris RE. Uterine anomalies: frequency of diagnosis and obstetric complications. Obstet Gynecol 1976; 47:427–433.

Videos :

watch?v

Download Download [ PDF ] ABSTRACT[ ABSTRACT ] Email Send to a friend Page Views Page Views(9691) Facebook ShareFacebook Share Twitter ShareTwitter Share