Welcome to International Journal of Anatomy and Research

Type of Article : Original

Year: 2015 | Volume 3 | Issue 1 | Page No. 935-940

Date of Publication: 31-03-2015

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.16965/ijar.2015.121

STUDY OF MORPHOLOGY OF UTERUS USING ULTRASOUND SCAN

P. Priya ¹, S. Vijayalakshmi *².

¹ Lecturer, Dept. of Anatomy, R.V.S Dental College, Sulur, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.
^*2Associate Professor, Dept. of Anatomy, Saveetha Medical College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.

Address: Dr. S. Vijayalakshmi, Associate Professor, Department of Anatomy, Saveetha Medical College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
E-Mail: svlgp65@gmail.com

Abstract

Background: The anatomical variations of uterus particularly those concerning the body of uterus are well known in medical literature. Knowledge of these variations is important in reproductive periods of life, as well as in deciding the surgical procedures involving caesarean section delivery. However there are some exceptional variations in the body of uterus that may puzzle the obstetrician and gynaecologist dealing with gynaecological patients. Normal development of the female reproductive tract requires a complex series of events. Failure of any part of this process can result in congenital anomaly. Careful sonography and an awareness of the sonographic findings of early pregnancy in anomalous uteri should improve the detection of these anomalies. Recognition of such anomalies will also allow differentiation of those patients requiring repeat dilatation and curettage from those requiring laparotomy, as in the presence of a blind uterine horn or ectopic gestation. 3D ultrasonography permits the obtaining of planar reformatted sections through the uterus, which allow precise evaluation of fundal indentation & length of the septum. Aim This study was undertaken to assess the morphology of uterus and evaluate the anomalies.
Materials: 1500 subjects within the age of 15-45 were assessed using ultrasound   scan   and   the   anomalies   were   analyzed.
Results: 5-7% cases involving the variations of morphology of the uterus were reported in this study, that 3DUS has recently  become the only mandatory step in the initial investigation.
Conclusion: With timely and accurate diagnosis, appropriate management is likely to provide the best possible outcome for all such patients.
KEY WORDS: Mullerian duct, Arcuate uterus, Bicornuate uterus,3D ultrasonogram, Miscarriage.

References

1. Humaira Rani, Sobia Nawaz, Nadia Saif, Asma Tanveer Usmani. Frequency of mullerian duct abnormalities. Journal of Rawalpindi Medical College (JRMC) 2009;13(1):34-37.
2. Buttram VC Jr, Gibbons WE.  Mullerian anomalies: a proposed classification (An analysis of 144 cases) Fertility & Sterility. 1979;32(1):40-6
3. Sanja Kupesic, Asim Kurjak. Septate uterus: Detection and prediction of obstetrical complications by different forms of ultrasonography. Journal of Ultrasound Medicine 1998;17:631–636.
4. BrigitteWoelfer, Rehan Salim, Saikat Banerjee, Janine Elson, Lesley Regan, DavorJurkovic. Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies detected by three-dimensional ultrasound screening. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists 2001; 98(6):1099-1103.
5. Francois Manson, Frantisek Grochal, Uterine malformations. The fetus.net 2007.
6. Shalev E Uterine anomalies – when to treat? , when to circle?. The 2nd World Congress on controversies in obstetrics gynaecology & infertility.  Paris, France 2001.
7. Chan Y Y, Jayaprakasan K, Tan A, Thornton J G, Coomarasamy A, Raine-fenning A.  Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies: a systematic review. Ultrasound Obstetric Gynecology 2011;38:371–382.
8. Azen Salim, Noroyono Wibowo, Wiku Andonotopo. Pregnancy and uterine anomalies. Donald School Journal of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology 2011;5(3):187-191.
9. Meiling Hua, Anthony Odibo O, Ryan E Longman, George A Macones, Kimberly A Roehl, Alison G Cahill. Congenital uterine anomalies and adverse pregnancy outcomes. MSCI American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 2011.              
10. Saravelos S H, Cocksedge K A and Li, T C. Prevalence and diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies in women with reproductive failure: a critical appraisal. Human Reproduction Update 2008; 14 (5) : 415-429.
11. Francisco Raga, Celia Bauset. Reproductive impact of congenital mullerian anomalies. Human Reproduction 1998;12(10):2277–2281.         
12. Byrne J, Nussbaum-Blask A, Taylor WS, Rubin A, Hill M, O'Donnell R, Shulman S. Prevalence of mullerian duct anomalies detected at ultrasound. American Journal of Medical Genetics 2000; 94(1):9-12.
13. Maneschi F, Zupi E, Marconi D, Valli E, Romanini C, Mancuso S. Hysteroscopically detected asymptomatic mullerian anomalies. Prevalence and reproductive implications. The Journal of reproductive medicine 1995;40(10):684-648.
14. Salim R, Woelfer R, Backos M, Regan I, Jurkovic. Reproducibility of three-dimensional ultrasound diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies, Journal of ultrasound obstetrics and gynecology 2003;21:578–582.
15. Fauzia Butt. Reproductive outcome in women with congenital uterine anomalies. Annals of King Edward Medical University. 2011;17(2):171-177.

P. Priya, S. Vijayalakshmi. STUDY OF MORPHOLOGY OF UTERUS USING ULTRASOUND SCAN. Int J Anat Res 2015;3(1):935-940. DOI: 10.16965/ijar.2015.121