Skip to content
2000
Volume 20, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1573-4056
  • E-ISSN: 1875-6603
side by side viewer icon HTML

Abstract

Background

The classification of Congenital Uterine Malformations (CONUTA) relies on coronal imaging of the uterus using 3D TVUS and MRI. In everyday practice, radiologists and gynaecologists often struggle to confidently categorize CONUTA due to varying classification systems and the lack of worldwide consensus.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic concordance and discrepancies between two imaging techniques within the context of the ASRM, ESHRE/ESGE, and CUME systems.

Methods

Ninety-four patients suspected of having CONUTA underwent evaluation: 67 underwent 3D TVUS, 53 had MRI scans, and 34 were examined using both imaging techniques.

An initial cross-listing table of ASRM, ESHRE/ESGE, and CUME was created, and a flowchart schema was used to define the type of congenital uterine anomaly for each system

The prevalence of anomalies in each system was calculated, and Fleiss’ Kappa was used to assess and determine the level of agreement.

Results

Class VI arcuate uterus was the most common form in ASRM 2016 and 2021, while the partially septate uterus predominated in the CUME 2018 and ESHRE/ESGE 2016 classification systems.

Conclusion

There is no discordance between classification systems for all fusion defects and complete septate type of absorption defects. In the ESHRE/ESGE system, nearly half of the abnormal uteruses were categorized as partially septate. However, the CUME system proved less effective in distinguishing between normal and arcuate uteruses.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056244136231120075443
2024-01-01
2025-09-10
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/cmir/20/1/CMIR-20-E15734056244136.html?itemId=/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056244136231120075443&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. PfeiferS.M. AttaranM. GoldsteinJ. LindheimS.R. PetrozzaJ.C. RackowB.W. SiegelmanE. TroianoR. WinterT. ZuckermanA. RamaiahS.D. ASRM müllerian anomalies classification 2021.Fertil. Steril.202111651238125210.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.09.02534756327
    [Google Scholar]
  2. GrimbizisG.F. Di Spiezio SardoA. SaravelosS.H. GordtsS. ExacoustosC. Van SchoubroeckD. BermejoC. AmsoN.N. NargundG. TimmermanD. AthanasiadisA. BruckerS. De AngelisC. GergoletM. LiT.C. TanosV. TarlatzisB. FarquharsonR. GianaroliL. CampoR. The Thessaloniki ESHRE/ESGE consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies.Hum. Reprod.20163112710.1093/humrep/dev26426537921
    [Google Scholar]
  3. LudwinA. LudwinI. Coelho NetoM.A. NastriC.O. BhagavathB. LindheimS.R. MartinsW.P. Septate uterus according to ESHRE/ESGE, ASRM and CUME definitions: association with infertility and miscarriage, cost and warnings for women and healthcare systems.Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol.201954680081410.1002/uog.2029130977223
    [Google Scholar]
  4. LudwinA. MartinsW.P. NastriC.O. LudwinI. Coelho NetoM.A. LeitãoV.M. AciénM. AlcazarJ.L. BenacerrafB. CondousG. De WildeR.L. EmanuelM.H. GibbonsW. GuerrieroS. HurdW.W. LevineD. LindheimS. PellicerA. PetragliaF. SaridoganE. Congenital uterine malformation by experts (CUME): Better criteria for distinguishing between normal/arcuate and septate uterus?Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol.201851110110910.1002/uog.1892329024135
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BermejoC. Martínez TenP. CantareroR. DiazD. Pérez PedregosaJ. BarrónE. LabradorE. Ruiz LópezL. Three-dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging.Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol.201035559360110.1002/uog.755120052665
    [Google Scholar]
  6. GrauperaB. PascualM.A. HereterL. BrowneJ.L. ÚbedaB. RodríguezI. PedreroC. Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound compared with magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies using ESHRE–ESGE consensus on the classification of congenital anomalies of the female genital tract.Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol.201546561662210.1002/uog.1482525690307
    [Google Scholar]
  7. CekdemirY.E. MutluU. AcarD. AltayC. SecilM. DoganO.E. The accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasonography in the diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies and its concordance with magnetic resonance imaging.J. Obstet. Gynaecol.2022421677310.1080/01443615.2021.187764633938374
    [Google Scholar]
  8. PfeiferS. ButtsS. DumesicD. GraciaC. VernonM. FossumG. La BarberaA. MersereauJ. OdemR. PenziasA. PisarskaM. RebarR. ReindollarR. RosenM. SandlowJ. WidraE. Uterine septum: A guideline.Fertil. Steril.2016106353054010.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.05.01427235766
    [Google Scholar]
  9. LudwinA. LudwinI. PitynskiK. JachR. BanasT. Are the ESHRE/ESGE criteria of female genital anomalies for diagnosis of septate uterus appropriate?Hum. Reprod.201429486786810.1093/humrep/deu00124480714
    [Google Scholar]
  10. GrimbizisG.F. CampoR. Clinical approach for the classification of congenital uterine malformations.Gynecol. Surg.20129211912910.1007/s10397‑011‑0724‑222611348
    [Google Scholar]
  11. GrimbizisG.F. GordtsS. Di Spiezio SardoA. BruckerS. De AngelisC. GergoletM. LiT.C. TanosV. BrölmannH. GianaroliL. CampoR. The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies.Hum. Reprod.20132882032204410.1093/humrep/det09823771171
    [Google Scholar]
  12. LudwinA. LudwinI. Comparison of the ESHRE–ESGE and ASRM classifications of Müllerian duct anomalies in everyday practice.Hum. Reprod.201530356958010.1093/humrep/deu344
    [Google Scholar]
  13. TroianoR.N. McCarthyS.M. Mullerian duct anomalies: Imaging and clinical issues.Radiology20042331193410.1148/radiol.233102077715317956
    [Google Scholar]
  14. LudwinA. LudwinI. PityńskiK. BanasT. JachR. Differentiating between a double cervix or cervical duplication and a complete septate uterus with longitudinal vaginal septum.Taiwan. J. Obstet. Gynecol.201352230831010.1016/j.tjog.2013.04.03423915875
    [Google Scholar]
  15. SmithB.C. BrownD.L. CarterR.E. FamuyideA.O. Double cervix: Clarifying a diagnostic dilemma.Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.2014211126.e126.e510.1016/j.ajog.2014.03.01424631435
    [Google Scholar]
  16. LudwinA. Coelho NetoM.A. LudwinI. NastriC.O. CostaW. AciénM. AlcazarJ.L. BenacerrafB. CondousG. DeCherneyA. De WildeR.L. DiamondM.P. EmanuelM.H. GuerrieroS. HurdW. LevineD. LindheimS. PellicerA. PetragliaF. SaridoganE. MartinsW.P. Congenital Uterine Malformation by Experts ( CUME ): Diagnostic criteria for T-shaped uterus.Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol.202055681582910.1002/uog.2084531432589
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056244136231120075443
Loading
/content/journals/cmir/10.2174/0115734056244136231120075443
Loading

Data & Media loading...


  • Article Type:
    Research Article
Keyword(s): Congenital; CUME system; MRI; Three-dimensional ultrasonography; Uterine anomalies; Uterus
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test