Medrano-Uribe FA, Enríquez-Pérez MM, Reyes-Muñoz E

Language: Spanish
References: 12
Page: 163-166
PDF size: 64.02 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: In Mexico, the information available about the prevalence of uterine anatomical anomalies as the direct and indirect cause of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is limited. Objective: To know the prevalence and types of uterine anatomical anomalies in Mexican women with RPL. Methods: In a cross-sectional study, we included women attending a clinic for RPL from 2008 to 2013, with a history of three or more consecutive gestational losses, with the same couple and complete study protocol by factors. Altered anatomical factor was defined by any of the following diagnoses: Müllerian malformations, submucosal myomas, uterine synechiae, endometrial polyp, and cervical weakness, confirmed by laparoscopy and hysteroscopy. Results: We analyzed 188 women. The prevalence of anatomical anomalies was 41.5% (n = 78); the type of anatomical anomaly was: cervical weakness 15.9% (n = 30), septate uterus 11.7% (n = 22), and uterine synechiae 9.6% (n = 18), endometrial polyps 1.6% (n = 3), bicornuate uterus 1.1% (n = 2), arcuate uterus 0.5% (n = 1), didelphic uterus 0.5% (n=1), and submucosal myoma 0.5% (n=1). We identified the anatomic factor as the unique cause of RPL in 35.6% (n = 67) of cases. Conclusions: The prevalence of altered anatomical factor in Mexican women with RPL is 41.5%; more frequent anomalies were: cervical weakness, septate uterus, and uterine synechiae.

REFERENCES

1. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Evaluation and treatment of recurrent pregnancy loss: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(5):1103-11.

2. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The investigation and treatment of couples with recurrent first-trimester and second-trimester miscarriage. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. 2011. [Internet] Disponible en: http://www.guideline.gov/content.aspx?id=34959

3. Guimarães Filho HA, Mattar R, Pires CR, Araujo Júnior E, Moron AF, Nardozza LM. Comparison of hysterosalpingography, hysterosonography and hysteroscopy in evaluation of the uterine cavity in patients with recurrent pregnancy losses. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2006;274(5):284-8.

4. Saravelos SH, Cocksedge KA, Li TC. Prevalence and diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies in women with reproductive failure: A critical appraisal. Hum Reprod Update. 2008;14(5):415-29.

5. Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Zamora J, Thornton JG, Raine-Fenning N, Coomarasamy A. The prevalence of congenitaluterineanomalies in unselected and high-risk populations: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(6):761-71.

6. Guimarães Filho HA, Mattar R, Pires CR, Araujo Júnior E, Moron AF, Nardozza LM. Prevalence of uterinedefects in habitualabortionpatientsattended on at a universityhealthservice in Brazil. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2006;274(6):345-8.

7. Sugiura-Ogasawara M, Ozaki Y, Katano K, Suzumori N, Mizutani E. Uterine anomaly and recurrent pregnancy loss. Semin Reprod Med. 2011;29(6):514-21.

8. Reichman DE, Laufer MR. Congenital uterine anomalies affecting reproduction. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;24(2):193-208.

9. Li TC, Makris M, Tomsu M, Tuckerman E, Laird S. Recurrent miscarriage: aetiology, management and prognosis. Hum Reprod Update. 2002;8(5):463-81.

10. Mateu E, Casal J. Tamaño de la muestra. Rev Epidem Med Prev. 2003;1:8-14.

11. Yu D,Wong YM, Cheong Y, Xia E, Li TC. Asherman syndrome--one century later. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(4):759-79.

12. Saravelos SH, Yan J, Rehmani H, Li TC. The prevalence and impact of fibroids and their treatment on the outcome of pregnancy in women with recurrent miscarriage. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(12):3274-9.