Research Article, Jgsd Vol: 7 Issue: 2

The spectrum of Müllerian Anomalies Presented in a Tertiary Care Centre: Three-Year Experience

Agarwal M^1*, Bhushan D², Agarwal N¹ and Singh S³

¹Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, India

²Department of General Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, India

³All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, India

*Corresponding Author : Agarwal M
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Phulwarisharif, Patna, Bihar-801507, India
Tel: +91-9661215080
E-mail: drmuktaa@aiimspatna.org

Received: July 30, 2019 Accepted: August 14, 2019 Published: August 20, 2019

Citation: Agarwal M, Bhushan D, Agarwal N, Singh S (2019) The Spectrum of Müllerian Anomalies Presented in a Tertiary Care Centre: Three-Year Experience. J Genit Syst Disord 8:1.

Abstract

Keywords: Müllerian; Müllerian ducts; Vaginal anomalies; Uterine anomalies

Introduction

Female genital tract develops from a pair of ducts called Müllerian or paramesonephric ducts [1]. Any deviations from normal development of these ducts result in congenital defects in the anatomy of the female reproductive tract, which can lead to many health problems mainly with menstruation and reproduction. Different systems had been proposed time to time to classify these abnormalities [2], the most commonly used one is given by American fertility society (AFS) [3] which is being used to classify these defects for years. But it’s difficult to classify the complex Müllerian duct anomalies [4-7], which has more than one site involved as per the American Fertility Society (AFS classification. Hence, to overcome this difficulty, ESHRE has developed a new system of classification-Congenital uterine anomalies (CONUTA) [8] classification, which can classify even complex Müllerian anomalies.

Aims and Objectives

To assess various clinical presentations of Mu �?�?llerian duct anomalies.

To classify various Mu �?�?llerian duct anomalies according to CONUTA system.

To follow up these cases for work up, diagnosis, management and outcome.

Materials and Methods

The present study is a Prospective Cohort Study conducted in a tertiary care centre of Eastern India in between December 2015 to December 2018. During this period, patients who were diagnosed to have Müllerian duct anomalies were included in the study. Work-up of these cases including patient's presenting complaints, relevant clinical findings and detailed investigation like radiological assessment-Pelvic USG, MRI (if needed), S. FSH levels (other hormones as indicated), Karyotyping, IVP and X-ray lumbosacral spine (for associated anomalies) were done and based on the findings, final diagnosis was made. Cases were classified as per CONUTA SYSTEM. Cases were managed individually with optimum surgical management (Figures 1 and 2). The outcome was evaluated, and patients are being followed up till date.

Results

During the defined period, more than 6,000 patients visited the outpatient department for various gynaecological complaints. Out of them, 33 patients were found to have some Müllerian duct anomaly. The most common presentation was pain abdomen (cyclical) followed by primary amenorrhea, inability to conceive and recurrent miscarriage.

Most of the patients belong to the adolescent age group, 36.36%% in the age group of 18-21 years. However, it is important to note that patients with cyclical abdominal pain tend to present at an earlier age and patients with fertility issues tend to present at a later age (Table 1).

Table 1: Distribution of cases according to age (n=33).

33.33% of patients presented primarily with pain abdomen (associated with amenorrhea in eight out of 11 cases, 70%). 27.27% of patients presented with primary amenorrhea without any associated pain. 21.21% of patients presented with infertility and an almost equal number with recurrent miscarriage (Table 2).

Table 2: Distribution of cases as per clinical presentation (n=33).

All the 9 patients presented with primary amenorrhea without any pain abdomen, diagnosed as MRKH syndrome (Table 3).

Table 3: Details of patients presented with primary amenorrhoea.

Among 11 patients presented with abdominal pain with or without menarche attained. Only one patient had imperforate hymen for which hymenectomy was done, one with a transverse vaginal septum which was excised and three with the longitudinal vaginal septum and uterus didelphys, where septum was excised, all three patients resumed menses after surgery. Three patient had cervico-vaginal agenesis along with uterine malformation; all three of them underwent cervicovagino- plasty with a positive outcome. Out of four patients with unicornuate uterus with rudimentary horn, excision was needed in two cases in whom it was functional and presented with hematometra, one of them had huge hematosalpinx as well, which was also excised. One patient of cervico-vaginal agenesis was diagnosed to have a large ventricular septal defect (VSD) with the bi-directional flow, i.e. Eisenmenger’s syndrome. As the pregnancy is posing a threat to life in these patients, hence, the decision of hysterectomy was taken by family, and the patient was counselled to get vaginoplasty done later when planning to start sexual activity (Tables 4 and 5).

Table 4: Details of cases presented with cyclical pain ± amenorrhoea (n=11).

Table 5: Distribution of cases presented with infertility (n=7).

The bicornuate uterus was reported in one case that was presented with recurrent miscarriage; this patient was managed conservatively. Close follow-up was done throughout the pregnancy with cervical length, progesterone supplementation was given and the patient delivered at term by caesarean section for breech presentation (Table 6).

Table 6: Distribution of cases presented with recurrent miscarriage (n=6).

Cases were classified according to CONUTA System proposed by ESHRE, were all organs of female genital tracts have been taken into account (U=Uterus, C-Cervix, V=Vagina). Anomalies are classified on the scale of 0 to 5; 0 being normal and 5 depicts absence of that particular organ [8] This system enables us to classify complex Müllerian anomalies involving more than one organ (Table 7).

Table 7: Distribution of cases according to Conuta system (n=33).

Discussion

Müllerian anomalies are not very common to see in gynaecology outpatient department, prevalence being 6.7% in the general population, 7.3% in the infertile population and 16.7% in recurrent miscarriage population [9]. In our case series, it was 33 cases of Müllerian anomalies diagnosed in three years with almost 6,000 patient attending Gynaecology OPD, making the prevalence of about 0.55% the age at presentation is typically the adolescent age group [10]. In this series, the mean age of presentation was 19.3 years.

Meyer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser (MRKH) syndrome was the most common diagnosis for the cases presented with primary amenorrhoea, all were managed by Mc Indoe vaginoplasty with favourable outcome and leading normal sexual life. The results were in consistency of other studies reported in literature [11-13]. Among cases presented with cyclical pain, most of the patients were having complex Müllerian anomalies barring two, with imperforate hymen [14-16] and transverse vaginal septum and responded well with hymenectomy and septum excision respectively. Other studies [17,18] also shows good results with the same treatment. Three patients presented with obstructing longitudinal vaginal septum with uterus didelphys and hematocolpos, got relieved of symptoms after septum excision and menstruating normally [19,20]. Out of four patients with absent cervix [21,22], with or without other associated malformation, three underwent cervicovaginoplasty were able to achieve menstruation and are under followup. One patient presented with unicornuate uterus with hematometra and rudimentary non-functional horn and absent cervix and vagina had associated large ventricular septal defect with the bi-directional flow with severe pulmonary artery hypertension and Eisenmenger’s syndrome at presentation. For her, in consultation with a cardiologist and cardiac surgeon, and with the consent of parents, hysterectomy was done in view of severe heart disease and unable to carry a pregnancy afterwards, the patient is under follow-up in cardiology and gynaecology OPD.

Among three patients presented with septate uterus and infertility, two were conceived and delivered on ovulation induction, and one is in follow-up. Out of four patients of recurrent miscarriage with septate uterus, two had conceived and delivered at term; patients were given injectable progesterone depot preparation weekly till 34 weeks of pregnancy. Previous studies also show similar outcome with the same kind of treatment [23,24].

Since Müllerian anomalies tend to be associated with other systemic anomalies also as renal, skeletal, ano-rectal and cardio-vascular anomalies [25,26]. In this series, we report three cases of single kidney, two with OHVIRA syndrome and one with bicornuate uterus, one patient with the ectopic kidney. One patient had associated kyphoscoliosis. One case of unicornuate uterus with cervico-vaginal agenesis had large VSD with severe PAH with Eisenmenger’s syndrome. In the literature review, we could find case report of patent foramen ovale and small atrial septal defects associated with Müllerian anomalies, but none was large and presented with bi-directional shunt as in our patient [27,28].

Conclusion

Müllerian anomalies are not very uncommon to have in Gynaecology practice. Patients are mostly adolescent girls and need to be treated with genuine care and empathy. Proper diagnostic work-up is essential to reach a diagnosis. Optimum management of the condition results in a good patient outcome.

References

1. Moore K, Persaud TVN, Torchia MG (2008) Before We Are Born (7th ed) Philadelphia: Saunders/Elsevier 162: 189.
2. Acién P, Acién MI (2011) The history of female genital tract malformation classifications and proposal of an updated system. Hum Reprod Update 17: 693–705.
3. The American Fertility Society (1998) The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, müllerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril 49: 944–955.
4. Acién P, Acién M, Sánchez-Ferrer ML (2009) Müllerian anomalies “without a classification”: From the didelphys-unicollis uterus to the bicervical uterus with or without septate vagina. Fertil Steril 91: 2369–2375.
5. Grimbizis GF, Campo R (2010) Congenital malformations of the female genital tract: The need for a new classification system. Fertil Steril 94: 401–407.
6. Agarwal M, Tiwary B, Gurung P (2019) Complex mullarian duct abnormality in a young female: A theraputic dilemma. IJRCOG 6: 3673–3675.
7. Agarwal M, Sinha HH, Anamika (2016) Congenital absence of a part of the fallopian tube: A case report. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 6: 320–322.
8. Grimbizis GF, Gordts S, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Brucker S, De Angelis C, et al. (2013) The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Human Reproduction 28: 2032–2044.
9. Saravelos SH, Cocksedge KA, Li TC (2008) Prevalence and diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies in women with reproductive failure: a critical appraisal. Hum Reprod 14: 415–429.
10. Banerjee I, Mondal SC, Dam P, Roy P (2014) Case Series of Mullerian developmental defects encountered in a tertiary care hospital: A one-year experience. OJOG 04: 733–744.
11. McIndoe A (1950) The treatment of congenital absence and obliterative conditions of the vagina. Br J Plast Surg 2: 254–267.
12. Roberts CP, Haber MJ, Rock JA (2001) Vaginal creation for müllerian agenesis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185: 1349–1353.
13. Vatsa R, Bharti J, Roy KK, Kumar S, Sharma JB, et al. (2017) Evaluation of amnion in creation of neovagina in women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome. Fertil Steril 108: 341–345.
14. Lardenoije C, Aardenburg R, Mertens H (2009) Imperforate hymen: A cause of abdominal pain in female adolescents. BMJ Case Reports  2009.
15. Lee K, Hong J, Jung H, Jeong H, Moon S, et al. (2019) Imperforate hymen: A comprehensive systematic review. J Clin Med 8: 56.
16. Acar A, Balci O, Karatayli R, Capar M, Colakoglu M. (2007) The treatment of 65 women with imperforate hymen by a central incision and application of Foley catheter. BJOG: An Int J Obstet Gynaecol 114: 1376–1379.
17. Rock JA, Zacur HA, Dlugi AM, Jones HW, TeLinde RW (1982) Pregnancy success following surgical correction of imperforate hymen and complete transverse vaginal septum. Obstet Gynecol 59: 448–451.
18. Garcia RF (1967) Z-plasty for correction of congenital transferse vaginal septum. Am J Obstet Gynecol 99: 1164–1165.
19. Moawad NS, Mahajan ST, Moawad SA, Greenfield M (2009) Uterus didelphys and longitudinal vaginal septum coincident with an obstructive transverse vaginal septum. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 22: e163–1655.
20. Mandava A, Prabhakar RR, Smitha S (2012) OHVIRA Syndrome (obstructed hemivagina and ipsilateral renal anomaly) with Uterus Didelphys, an Unusual Presentation. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol, 25: e23–25.
21. Moeed SM, Grover S, Jayasinghe Y, Moore PM (2011) Cervical agenesis: Progress and pitfalls in creation of uterovaginal anastomoses. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 24: e56.
22. Lekovich J, Pfeifer SM (2016) Cervical Agenesis. In: Pfeifer SM (ed) Congenital Müllerian Anomaliesâ�?¯: Diagnosis and Management 55–63.
23. Pfeifer S, Butts S, Dumesic D, Gracia C, Vernon M, et al. (2016) Uterine septum: A guideline. Fertil Steril 106: 530–540.
24. Hickok LR (2000) Hysteroscopic treatment of the uterine septum: A clinician’s experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol 182: 1414–1420.
25. Kapczuk K, Iwaniec K, Friebe Z, K�?�?dzia W (2016) Congenital malformations and other comorbidities in 125 women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 207: 45–49.
26. Rall K, Eisenbeis S, Henninger V, Henes M, Wallwiener D, et al. (2015) Typical and atypical associated findings in a group of 346 patients with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuester-Hauser syndrome. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 28: 362–368.
27. Ganie MA, Laway BA, Ahmed S, Alai MS, Lone GN (2010) Mayer-Rokintansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome associated with atrial septal defect, partial anomalous pulmonary venous connection and unilateral kidney: An unusual triad of anomalies. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab 23: 1087–1091.
28. Goryaeva M, Sykes MC, Lau B, West S (2016) Unusual association between cardiac, skeletal, urogenital and renal abnormalities. BMJ Case Rep: bcr2016215281.