子宫纵隔的鉴别诊断：问题与解决方法

封面


如何引用文章

全文:

开放存取 开放存取
受限制的访问 ##reader.subscriptionAccessGranted##
受限制的访问 订阅存取

详细

本文介绍了有关子宫畸形类型诊断特征的文献资料。本文的主要内容是三维超声在子宫纵隔鉴别诊断中的作用和有效性。

作者简介

Ekaterina Kazantseva

The Research Institute of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductology named after D.O. Ott

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: katrin8505@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4948-4125

MD, Post-Graduate Student

俄罗斯联邦, Saint Petersburg

Elizaveta Shelayeva

The Research Institute of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductology named after D.O. Ott

Email: eshelaeva@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9608-467X
SPIN 代码: 7440-0555
Researcher ID: K-2755-2018

MD, PhD, Senior Researcher. The Ultrasound Department

俄罗斯联邦, Saint Petersburg

Elena Rusina

The Research Institute of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductology named after D.O. Ott

Email: pismo_rusina@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8744-678X
SPIN 代码: 3527-5104
Researcher ID: K-1269-2018

MD, PhD, DSci (Medicine), Leading Researcher

俄罗斯联邦, Saint-Petersburg

参考

  1. Ludwin A, Ludwin I, Kudla M, Kottner J. Reliability of the European society of human reproduction and embryology/European Society for gynaecological endoscopy and American society for reproductive medicine classification systems for congenital uterine anomalies detected using three-dimensional ultrasonography. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(3):688-697.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.06.019.
  2. Grimbizis GF, Gordts S, Di Spiezio Sardo A, et al. The ESHRE-ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Gynecol Surg. 2013;10(3):199-212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10397-013-0800-x.
  3. Rackow BW, Arici A. Reproductive performance of women with Müllerian anomalies. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;19(3):229-237. https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0b013 e32814b0649.
  4. Fedele L, Bianchi S, Frontino G. Septums and synechiae: Approaches to surgical correction. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006;49(4):767-788. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.grf.0000 211948.36465.a6.
  5. Devi Wold AS, Pham N, Arici A. Anatomic factors in recurrent pregnancy loss. Semin Reprod Med. 2006;24(1):25-32. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-931798.
  6. Стрижаков А.Н., Давыдов А.И. Оперативная гистероскопия при пороках развития матки // Вопросы гинекологии, акушерства и перинатологии. − 2015. − Т. 14. − № 3. − С. 66–71. [Strizhakov AN, Davydov IM. Operative hysteroscopy in maldevelopment of the uterus. Gynecology, obstetrics and perinatology. 2015;14(3):66-71. (In Russ.)]
  7. Coleman AD, Arbuckle JL. Advanced imaging for the diagnosis and treatment of coexistent renal and Müllerian abnormalities. Curr Urol Rep. 2018;19(11):89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-018-0840-x.
  8. Lekovich J, Stewart J, Anderson S, et al. Placental malperfusion as a possible mechanism of preterm birth in patients with Müllerian anomalies. J Perinat Med. 2017;45(1):45-49. https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2016-0075.
  9. Abrao MS, Muzii L, Marana R. Anatomical causes of female infertility and their management. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2013;123(Suppl 2):S18-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo. 2013.09.008.
  10. Ludwin A, Ludwin I, Banas T, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of sonohysterography, hysterosalpingography and diagnostic hysteroscopy in diagnosis of arcuate, septate and bicornuate uterus. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;37(3):178-186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0756.2010.01304.x.
  11. Prior M, Richardson A, Asif S, et al. Outcome of assisted reproduction in women with congenital uterine anomalies: A prospective observational study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51(1):110-117. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog. 18935.
  12. Адамян Л.В., Кулаков В.И., Хашукоева А.З. Пороки развития матки и влагалища. – М.: Медицина, 1998. – 327 c. [Adamyan LV, Kulakov VI, Khashukoeva AZ. Poroki razvitiya matki i vlagalishcha. Мoscow: Medicina; 1998. 327 p. (In Russ.)]
  13. Braun P, Grau FV, Pons RM, Enguix DP. Is hysterosalpingography able to diagnose all uterine malformations correctly? A retrospective study. Eur J Radiol. 2005;53(2):274-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2004.04.004.
  14. Grimbizis GF, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Saravelos SH, et al. The Thessaloniki ESHRE/ESGE consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies. Gynecol Surg. 2016;13:1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10397-015-0909-1.
  15. Ghi T, Casadio P, Kuleva M, et al. Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound in diagnosis and classification of congenital uterine anomalies. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(2):808-813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.05.086.
  16. Jurkovic D, Geipel A, Gruboeck K, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound for the assessment of uterine anatomy and detection of congenital anomalies: A comparison with hysterosalpingography and twodimensional sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995;5(4):233-237. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0705.1995.05040233.x.
  17. Raga F, Bonilla-Musoles F, Blanes J, Osborne NG. Congenital Müllerian anomalies: Diagnostic accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound. Fertil Steril. 1996;65(3):523-528. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(16)58147-3.
  18. Kougioumtsidou A, Mikos T, Grimbizis GF, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis and the classification of congenital uterine anomalies using the ESHRE/ESGE classification: A diagnostic accuracy study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019;299(3):779-789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-019-05050-x.
  19. Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Tan A, et al. Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies: A systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38(4):371-382. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.10056.
  20. 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):415-429. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmn018.
  21. Salim R, Jurkovic D. Assessing congenital uterine anomalies: The role of three-dimensional ultrasonography. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2004;18(1):29-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2003.09.001.
  22. Ludwin A, Martins WP, Nastri CO, et al. Congenital Uterine Malformation by Experts (CUME): better criteria for distinguishing between normal/arcuate and septate uterus? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51(1):101-109. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.18923.
  23. Yoo RE, Cho JY, Kim SY, Kim SH. Magnetic resonance evaluation of Müllerian remnants in Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome. Korean J Radiol. 2013;14(2):233-239. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2013.14.2.233.
  24. Fukunaga T, Fujii S, Inoue C, et al. The spectrum of imaging appearances of müllerian duct anomalies: Focus on MR imaging. Jpn J Radiol. 2017;35(12):697-706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-017-0681-4.
  25. Junqueira BL, Allen LM, Spitzer RF, et al. Müllerian duct anomalies and mimics in children and adolescents: Correlative intraoperative assessment with clinical imaging. Radiographics. 2009;29(4):1085-1103. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.294085737.
  26. Padhani AR, Husband JE. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI studies in oncology with an emphasis on quantification, validation and human studies. Clin Radiol. 2001;56(8):607-620. https://doi.org/10.1053/crad.2001.0762.
  27. Мирошникова НА. Оптимизация хирургического лечения женщин с симметричными аномалиями матки с учетом кровотока в миометрии: автореф. дис. … канд. мед. наук. – М., 2019. – 26 c. [Miroshnikova NA. Optimizatsiya khirurgicheskogo lecheniya zhenshchin s simmetrichnymi anomaliyami matki s uchetom krovotoka v miometrii. [dissertation] Moscow; 2019. 26 p. (In Russ.)]
  28. Kupesic S. Clinical implications of sonographic detection of uterine anomalies for reproductive outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001;18(4):387-400. https://doi.org/ 10.1046/j.0960-7692.2001.00539.x.
  29. Corroenne R, Legendre G, May-Panloup P, et al. Surgical treatment of septate uterus in cases of primary infertility and before assisted reproductive technologies. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2018;47(9):413-418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2018.08.005.
  30. Marcus S, al-Shawaf T, Brinsden P. The obstetric outcome of in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer in women with congenital uterine malformation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175(1):85-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9378(96)70255-7.
  31. Tomaževič T, Ban-Frangež H, Virant-Klun I, et al. Septate, subseptate and arcuate uterus decrease pregnancy and live birth rates in IVF/ICSI. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;21(5):700-705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo. 2010.06.028.
  32. Paradisi R, Barzanti R, Natali F, et al. Hysteroscopic metroplasty: Reproductive outcome in relation to septum size. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014;289(3):671-676. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-3003-9.
  33. Homer HA, Li TC, Cooke ID. The septate uterus: A review of management and reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(1):1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(99)00480-x.
  34. Zabak K, Bénifla JL, Uzan S. [Septate uterus and reproduction disorders: current results of hysteroscopic septoplasty. (In French)]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2001;29(11):829-840. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1297-9589(01)00228-4.
  35. Paradisi R, Barzanti R, Fabbri R. The techniques and outcomes of hysteroscopic metroplasty. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2014;26(4):295-301. https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO. 0000000000000077.
  36. Cararach M, Penella J, Ubeda A, Labastida R. Hysteroscopic incision of the septate uterus: Scissors versus resectoscope. Hum Reprod. 1994;9(1):87-89. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a138326.
  37. Duffy S, Reid PC, Smith JH, Sharp F. In vitro studies of uterine electrosurgery. Obstet Gynecol. 1991;78(2):213-220.

补充文件

附件文件
动作
1. JATS XML
下载

版权所有 © Kazantseva E., Shelayeva E., Rusina E., 2020

Creative Commons License
此作品已接受知识共享署名 4.0国际许可协议的许可

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).