Current classification systems and methodological approaches in the diagnosis of uterine malformations

1. Venetis C.A., Papadopoulos S.P., Campo R., Gordts S., Tarlatzis B.C., Grimbizis G.F. Clinical implications of congenital uterine anomalies: a meta-analysis of comparative studies. Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2014; 29(6): 665-83. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.09.006.
2. Gundabattula S.R., Joseph E., Marakani L.R., Dasari S., Nirmalan P.K. Reproductive outcomes after resection of intrauterine septum. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2014. 34(3): 235-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.3109/01443615.2013.836477.
3. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Electronic address: ASRM@asrm.org; Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Uterine septum: a guideline. Fertil. Steril. 2016; 106(3): 530-40. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.05.014.
4. Ludwin A., Pitynski K., Ludwin I., Banas T., Knafel A. Two- and three-dimensional ultrasonography and sonohysterography versus hysteroscopy with laparoscopy in the differential diagnosis of septate, bicornuate, and arcuate uteri. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2013; 20(1): 90-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2012.09.011.
5. Fernandes S.M., Maçães A.M., Marques A.L., Leite H.V. Reproductive outcomes after hysteroscopic septoplasty: a retrospective study. Rev. Bras. Ginecol. Obstet. 2015; 37(3): 110-14. https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/SO-720320150005258.
6. Sugiura-Ogasawara M., Ozaki Y., Suzumori N. Mullerian anomalies and recurrent miscarriage. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 2013; 25(4): 293-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0b013e3283632849.
7. Heinonen P.K. Distribution of female genital tract anomalies in two classifications. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2016; 206(11): 141-6. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.09.009.
8. Di Spiezio Sardo A., Campo R., Gordts S., Spinelli M., Cosimato C., Tanos V. et al. The comprehensiveness of the ESHRE/ESGE classification of female genital tract congenitalanomalies: a systematic review of cases not classified by the AFS system. Hum. Reprod. 2015; 30(5): 1046-58. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev 061.
9. Acien P., Acien M.I. The history of female genital tract malformation classifications and proposal of an updated system. Hum. Reprod. Update. 2011; 17(5): 693-705. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmr021.
10. Oppelt P.G., Lermann J., Strick R., Dittrich R., Strissel P., Rettig I. et al. Malformations in a cohort of 284 women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome (MRKH). Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 2012; 10: 57. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-10-57.
11. Amin M.B., Edge S., Greene F., Byrd D.R., Brookland R.K., Washington M.K. et al. The 8th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual. New York: Springer; 2017. 1032c.
12. Grimbizis G.F., Gordts S., Di Spiezio Sardo A., Brucker S., DeAngelis C., Gergolet M. et al. The ESHRE-ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Gynecol. Surg. 2013; 10(3): 199-212. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10397-013-0800-x.
13. Кругляк Д.А., Буралкина Н.А., Ипатова М.В., Батырова З.К., Уварова Е.В. Аплазия влагалища и матки (синдром Майера-Рокитанского-Кюстнера-Хазера): этиология, патогенетические аспекты и теория формирования порока (обзор литературы). Гинекология. 2018; 20(2): 64-6. [Kruglyak D.A., Buralkina N.A., Ipatova M.V., Batyrova Z.K., Uvarova E.V. Aplasia of the vagina and uterus (Mayer-Rokitansky-Kyustner-Hazer syndrome): etiology, pathogenetic aspects and theory of the formation of a defect (literature review). Gynecology. 2018; 20 (2): 64-6. (in Russian)]. https://dx.doi.org/10.26442/2079-5696 2018.2.64-66
14. Мартыш Н.С. Применение эхографии в диагностике аномалий развития внутренних половых органов у девочек. Акушерство и гинекология. 2011; 7-1: 89-93. [Martish N.S. The use of echography in the diagnosis of abnormalities of the development of internal genital organs in girls. Obstetrics and gynecology. 2011; 7-1: 89-93. (in Russian)]
15. Макиян З.Н., Адамян Л.В., Быченко В.Г., Мирошникова Н.А., Козлова А.В. Функциональная магнитно-резонансная томография для определения кровотока при симметричных аномалиях матки. Акушерство и гинекология. 2016; 10: 73-79. [Makiyan Z.N., Adamyan L.V., Bychenko V.G., Miroshnikova N.A., Kozlova A.V. Functional magnetic resonance imaging to determine blood flow with symmetric anomalies of the uterus. Obstetrics and gynecology. 2016; 10: 73-79. (in Russian)]
16. Адамян Л.В., Гашенко В.О., Данилов А.Ю., Коган Е.А. Результаты восстановления репродуктивной функции у больных с внутриматочной перегородкой после хирургического лечения и новые пути решения проблемы (обзор литературы). Проблемы репродукции. 2011; 17(1): 35-40. [Adamyan L.V., Gashenko V.O., Danilov A.Yu., Kogan E.A. The results of the restoration of reproductive function in patients with an intrauterine septum after surgical treatment and new ways to solve the problem (literature review). Reproduction problems. 2011; 17 (1): 35-40.(in Russian)]
17. Graupera B., Pascual M.A., Hereter L., Browne J.L., Úbeda B., Rodríguez I. et al. Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound compared with magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis of Mullerian duct anomalies using ESHRE-ESGE consensus on the classification of congenital anomalies of the female genital tract. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2015; 46(5): 616-22. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.14825.
18. El-Sherbiny W., El-Mazny A., Abou-Salem N., Mostafa W.S. The diagnostic accuracy of two- vs three-dimensional sonohysterography for evaluation of the uterine cavity in the reproductive age. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2015; 22(1): 127-31. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2014.08.779.
19. Liu M., Wang S.S., Lin X.W., He S.H. Clinical value of three-dimensional transvaginal sonography in diagnosis of septate uterus and prediction of adverse pregnancy outcome. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2013; 48(7): 499-503.
20. Grimbizis G.F., Di Spiezio Sardo A., Saravelos S.H., Gordts S., Exacoustos C., Van Schoubroeck D. et al. The Thessaloniki ESHRE/ESGE consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies. Hum. Reprod. 2016; 31(1): 2-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev264.
21. Ludwin A., Ludwin I. Comparison of the ESHRE-ESGE and ASRM classifications of Mullerian duct anomalies in everyday practice. Hum. Reprod. 2015; 30(3): 569-80. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu344.
22. Ludwin A., Martins W.P., Nastri C.O., Ludwin I., Coelho Neto M.A., Leitão V.M. et al. Congenital Uterine Malformation by Experts (CUME): better criteria for distinguishing between normal/arcuate and septate uterus? Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2018; 51(1): 101-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.18923.
23. 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): 688-97. e8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.06.019.

Received 29.06.2018

Accepted 21.09.2018