Download PDF
Semin Reprod Med 2000; 18(4): 341-350
DOI: 10.1055/s-2000-13723
Copyright © 2000 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel.: +1(212) 584-4662

Anatomic Factors Associated with Recurrent Pregnancy Loss

Anthony M. Propst, Joseph A. Hill III
  • Division of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
31 December 2000 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Anatomic uterine defects appear to predispose women to reproductive difficulties, including first- and second-trimester pregnancy losses, higher rates of preterm labor and birth, and abnormal fetal presentation. These anatomic abnormalities can be classified as congenital, including müllerian and diethylstilbestrol-related abnormalities, or acquired, such as intrauterine adhesions or leiomyomata. In women with three or more consecutive spontaneous abortions who underwent hysterosalpingography or hysteroscopic examination of their uteri, müllerian anomalies have been found in 8 to 10%. Women with müllerian anomalies may be predisposed to recurrent pregnancy loss because of inadequate vascularity to the developing embryo and placenta, reduced intraluminal volume, or cervical incompetence. The reproductive history of most women with a müllerian anomaly is poor, especially for women with a uterine septum, the most common müllerian anomaly. Recurrent pregnancy losses resulting from a uterine septum, bicornuate uterus, intrauterine adhesions, and fibroids are amenable to surgical correction. Women with müllerian anomaly and a history of second-trimester pregnancy losses may benefit from a prophylactic cervical cerclage.

KEYWORD

Recurrent pregnancy loss - müllerian anomalies - diethylstilbestrol

REFERENCES

  • 1 Stray-Pedersen B, Stray-Pedersen S. Etiologic factors and subsequent reproductive performance in 195 couples with prior history of habitual abortion.  Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1984;  148 140-146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Stephenson M D. Frequency of factors associated with habitual abortion in 197 couples.  Fertil Steril . 1996;  66 24-29
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Breech L L, Laufer M R. Developmental abnormalities of the female reproductive tract.  Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol . 1999;  11 441-450
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 McWilliams R B, Gibbons W E. Müllerian anomalies and recurrent pregnancy loss.  Infertil Reprod Med Clin North Am . 1991;  2 55-74
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ellias S, Simpson J L, Carson S A, Malinak L R, Buttram V C. Genetics studies in incomplete müllerian fusion.  Obstet Gynecol . 1984;  63 276-279
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Verp M S, Simpson J L, Elias S, Carson S A, Sarto G E, Feingold M. Heritable aspects of uterine anomalies: I. Three familial aggregates with müllerian fusion anomalies.  Fertil Steril . 1983;  40 80-85
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Greiss F C, Mauzy C H. Genital anomalies in women.  Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1961;  82 330-339
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ashton D, Amin H K, Richart R M, Neuwirth R S. The incidence of asymptomatic uterine anomalies in women undergoing transcervical tubal sterilization.  Obstet Gynecol . 1988;  72 28-30
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Simon C, Martinez L, Pardo F, Tortajada M, Pellicer A. Müllerian defects in women with normal reproductive outcome.  Fertil Steril . 1991;  56 1192-1193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bennett M J, Berry J VJ. Preterm labor and congenital malformations of the uterus.  Ultrasound Med Biol . 1979;  5 83-85
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Leible S, Munoz H, Walton R, Sabaj V, Cumsille F, Sepulveda W. Uterine artery blood flow velocity waveforms in pregnant women with müllerian duct anomaly: a biologic model for uteroplacental insufficiency.  Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1998;  178 1048-1053
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Strassman E O. Fertility and unification of the pregnant uterus.  Fertil Steril . 1966;  17 165-176
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Craig C JT. Congenital abnormalities of the uterus and foetal wastage.  S Afr Med J . 1973;  47 2000-2005
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Buttram V C, Gibbons W C. Müllerian anomalies: a proposed classification (an analysis of 144 cases).  Fertil Steril . 1979;  32 40-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 The American Fertility Society. The American Fertility Society classification of adnexal adhesions, distant tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, müllerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions.  Fertil Steril . 1988;  49 944-955
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Patton P E, Novy M J. Reproductive potential of the anomalous uterus.  Semin Reprod Endocrinol . 1988;  6 217-233
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Fedele L, Dorta M, Vercellini P, Brioschi D, Candiani G B. Ultrasound in the diagnosis of subclasses of unicornuate uterus.  Obstet Gynecol . 1988;  71 274-277
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Malini S, Valdes C, Malinaki L R. Sonographic diagnosis and classification of anomalies of the female genital tract.  J Ultrasound Med . 1984;  3 397-404
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Goldberg J M, Falcone T, Attaran M. Sonohysterographic evaluation of uterine anomalies noted on hysterosalpingography.  Hum Reprod . 1998;  12 2151-2152
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Raga F, Bonilla-Musoles F, Blanes J, Osborne N. Congenital müllerian anomalies: diagnostic accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound.  Fertil Steril . 1996;  65 523-528
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Pellerito J, McCarthy S, Doyle M, Glickman M, DeCherney A. Diagnosis of uterine anomalies: relative accuracy of MR imaging, endovaginal sonography, and hysterosalpingography.  Radiology . 1992;  103 795-800
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Heinonen P. Unicornuate uterus and rudimentary horn.  Fertil Steril . 1997;  68 224-230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Fedele L, Zamberletti D, Vercellini P, Dorta M, Candiani G B. Reproductive performance of women with unicornuate uterus.  Fertil Steril . 1987;  47 416-419
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Buttram V C. Müllerian anomalies and their management.  Fertil Steril . 1983;  40 159-163
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Andrews M C, Jones H W. Impaired reproductive performances of the unicornuate uterus: intrauterine growth retardation, infertility and recurrent abortion in five cases.  Am J Obstet Gyncecol . 1982;  144 173-176
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Rolen A C, Choquette A J, Semmens J P. Rudimentary uterine horn: obstetric and gynecologic implications.  Obstet Gynecol . 1966;  27 806-813
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Wajntraub A, Milwidsky A, Weiss D. Prevention of premature delivery in a unicornuate uterus by cervical cerclage.  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand . 1975;  54 497-498
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Heinonen P K, Saarikoski S, Pystynen P. Reproductive performance of women with uterine anomalies.  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand . 1982;  61 157-162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Abramovici H, Faktor J H, Pascal B. Congenital uterine malformations as indications for cervical suture (cerclage) in habitual abortion and premature delivery.  Int J Fertil . 1983;  28 161-164
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Sarto G E, Simpson J L. Abnormalities of the müllerian and wolffian duct systems.  Birth Defects . 1978;  14 37-54
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Caparo V J, Chuang J T, Randall C L. Improved fetal salvage after metroplasty.  Obstet Gynecol . 1968;  31 97-103
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Steinberg W. Strassman's metroplasty in the management of bipartite uterus causing sterility or habitual abortion.  Obstet Gynecol Surv . 1955;  10 400-430
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Buttram V C, Reiter R C. Surgical Treatment of the Infertile Female.  Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1985: 149
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Golan A, Langer R, Wexler S, Seveg E, Niv D, Menachem P D. Cervical cerclage: its role in the pregnant anomalous uterus.  Int J Fertil . 1990;  35 164-170
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Blum M. Prevention of spontaneous abortion by cervical suture of the malformed uterus.  Int Surg . 1977;  62 213-215
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Lee D M, Osathanondh R, Yeh J. Localization of Bcl-2 in the human fetal müllerian tract.  Fertil Steril . 1998;  70 135-140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Homer H A, Li T C, Cooke I D. The septate uterus: a review of management and reproductive outcome.  Fertil Steril . 2000;  73 1-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Maneschi F, Zupi E, Marconi D, Valli E, Romanini C, Mancuso S. Hysteroscopically detected asymptomatic müllerian anomalies.  J Reprod Med . 1995;  40 684-688
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Gray S E, Roberts D K, Franklin R R. Fertility after metroplasty of the septate uterus.  J Reprod Med . 1984;  29 185-188
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Daly D C, Witten C A, Soto-Albors C E, Riddick D H. Hysteroscopic metroplasty: surgical technique and obstetric outcome.  Fertil Steril . 1983;  39 623-628
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Raga F, Bauset C, Remohi J, Bonilla-Musoles F, Simon C, Pellicer A. Reproductive impact of congenital uterine anomalies.  Hum Reprod . 1997;  8 122-126
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Candiani G B, Fedele L, Zamberletti D, De Virgiliis D, Carinelli S. Endometrial patterns in malformed uteri.  Acta Eur Fertil . 1983;  14 35-42
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 De Cherney H A, Russell J B, Graebe R A, Polan M L. Resectoscopic management of müllerian fusion defects.  Fertil Steril . 1986;  45 726-728
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Valle R F. Hysteroscopic treatment of partial and complete uterine septum.  Int J Fertil Menopausal Stud . 1996;  41 310-315
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Fedele L, Bianchi S, Marchini M, Mezzopane R, DiNola G, Tozzi L. Residual uterine septum of less than 1 cm after hysteroscopic metroplasty does not impair reproductive outcome.  Hum Reprod . 1996;  11 727-729
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Herbst A L, Senekjian E K, Frey K W. Abortion and pregnancy loss among diethylstilbestrol-exposed women.  Semin Reprod Endocrinol . 1989;  7 124-129
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Kaufman R H, Adam E, Binder G L, Gerthoffer E. Upper genital tract changes and pregnancy outcome in offspring exposed in utero to diethylstilbestrol.  Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1980;  137 299-308
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Herbst A L, Ulfelder H, Poskanzer D C. Adenocarcinoma of the vagina: an association of maternal stilbestrol therapy with tumor appearing in young women.  N Engl J Med . 1971;  284 878-881
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Goldberg J M, Falcone T. Effect of diethylstilbestrol on reproductive function.  Fertil Steril . 1999;  72 1-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Salle B, Sergeant P, Awada A. Transvaginal ultrasound studies of vascular and morphological changes in uteri exposed to diethylstilbestrol in utero.  Hum Reprod . 1996;  11 2531-2536
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Ludmir J, Landon M B, Gabbe S G, Samuels P, Menutti M T. Management of the diethylstilbestrol-exposed pregnant patient: a prospective study.  Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1987;  157 665-659
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Levine R U, Berkowitz K M. Conservative management and pregnancy outcome in diethylstilbestrol-exposed women with and without gross genital tract abnormalities.  Am J Obstet Gynecol . 1993;  169 1125-1129
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Schenker J G, Margalioth E J. Intrauterine adhesions: an updated appraisal.  Fertil Steril . 1982;  37 593-610
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Feng Z C, Yang B, Shao J, Liu S. Diagnostic and therapeutic hysteroscopy for traumatic intrauterine adhesions after induced abortions: clinical analysis of 365 cases.  Gynaecol Endosc . 1999;  8 95-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 March C M, Israel R. Gestational outcome following hysteroscopic lysis of adhesions.  Fertil Steril . 1981;  36 455-459
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Vollenhoven B J, Lawrence A S, Healy D L. Uterine fibroids: a clinical review.  Br J Obstet Gynaecol . 1990;  97 285-298
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Cramer S F, Patel A. The frequency of uterine leiomyomas.  Am J Clin Pathol . 1990;  94 435-438
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Diamond M P, Polan M L. Intrauterine synechiae and leiomyomas in the evaluation and treatment of repetitive spontaneous abortions.  Semin Reprod Endocrinol . 1989;  7 111-114
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Eldar-Geva T, Meagher S, Healy D L, MacLachlan V, Breheny S, Wood C. Effect of intramural, subserosal, and submucosal uterine fibroids on the outcome of assisted reproductive technology treatment.  Fertil Steril . 1998;  70 687-691
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Buttram V C, Reiter R C. Uterine leiomyomata: etiology, symptomatology, and management.  Fertil Steril . 1981;  36 433-445
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Goldenberg M, Sivan E, Sharabi Z, Bider D, Rabinovici J, Seidman D S. Outcome of hysteroscopic resection of submucous myomas for infertility.  Fertil Steril . 1995;  64 714-716
    PubMedGoogle Scholar