The Prevalence of Congenital Uterine Anomalies in Unselected and High-risk Populations: a Systematic Review

Overview

Journal Hum Reprod Update

Specialty Reproductive Medicine

Date 2011 Jun 28

PMID 21705770

Citations 147

Authors

Y Y Chan

K Jayaprakasan

J Zamora

J G Thornton

N Raine-Fenning

A Coomarasamy

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies in high-risk women is unclear, as several different diagnostic approaches have been applied to different groups of patients. This review aims to evaluate the prevalence of such anomalies in unselected populations and in women with infertility, including those undergoing IVF treatment, women with a history of miscarriage, women with infertility and recurrent miscarriage combined, and women with a history of preterm delivery.

Methods: Searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane register were performed. Study selection and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers. Studies were grouped into those that used 'optimal' and 'suboptimal' tests for uterine anomalies. Meta-analyses were performed to establish the prevalence of uterine anomalies and their subtypes within the various populations.

Results: We identified 94 observational studies comprising 89 861 women. The prevalence of uterine anomalies diagnosed by optimal tests was 5.5% [95% confidence interval (CI), 3.5-8.5] in the unselected population, 8.0% (95% CI, 5.3-12) in infertile women, 13.3% (95% CI, 8.9-20.0) in those with a history of miscarriage and 24.5% (95% CI, 18.3-32.8) in those with miscarriage and infertility. Arcuate uterus is most common in the unselected population (3.9%; 95% CI, 2.1-7.1), and its prevalence is not increased in high-risk groups. In contrast, septate uterus is the most common anomaly in high-risk populations.

Conclusions: Women with a history of miscarriage or miscarriage and infertility have higher prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies compared with the unselected population.

Citing Articles

Didelphys uterus: a successful induction of labor in a case of intrauterine fetal death near term.

Paola A, Patrizia D, Valentina T, Paola F, Santina E, Silvia B Case Rep Perinat Med. 2025; 11(1):20210078.

PMID: 40041213 PMC: 11800674. DOI: 10.1515/crpm-2021-0078.

Mullerian anomalies: revisiting imaging and classification.

Dixit R, Duggireddy C, Pradhan G Insights Imaging. 2025; 16(1):40.

PMID: 39962011 PMC: 11832971. DOI: 10.1186/s13244-024-01879-2.

Incidental finding of didelphys uterus with twin pregnancy in each cavity; A rare case report.

Zeleke A, Tsegaye M, Geremew T, Dessie A, Hailemariam T, Delelegn B Int J Surg Case Rep. 2025; 127:110943.

PMID: 39862664 PMC: 11803255. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijscr.2025.110943.

Comparison of Fertilization Outcomes between Normal and T-Shaped Uteri, Diagnosed by Hysterosalpingography in Women with infertility: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Pahlavan F, Irani S, Mashayekhi M, Vesali S, Niknejad F, Ahmadi F Int J Fertil Steril. 2025; 19(1):24-28.

PMID: 39827387 PMC: 11744202. DOI: 10.22074/ijfs.2024.2007415.1497.

Usefulness and Safety of Hybrid Uterine Septal Dissection.

Saeki S, Fukui A, Yamaya A, Shibahara H Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2024; 13(4):241-246.

PMID: 39660237 PMC: 11626889. DOI: 10.4103/gmit.gmit_25_24.

References

Maneschi F, Zupi E, Marconi D, Valli E, Romanini C, Mancuso S . Hysteroscopically detected asymptomatic müllerian anomalies. Prevalence and reproductive implications. J Reprod Med. 1995; 40(10):684-8. View

Phung Thi Tho , BYRD J, McDonough P . Etiologies and subsequent reproductive performance of 100 couples with recurrent abortion. Fertil Steril. 1979; 32(4):389-95. View

Zlopasa G, Skrablin S, Kalafatic D, Banovic V, Lesin J . Uterine anomalies and pregnancy outcome following resectoscope metroplasty. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007; 98(2):129-33. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2007.04.022. View

Drakeley A, Quenby S, Farquharson R . Mid-trimester loss--appraisal of a screening protocol. Hum Reprod. 1998; 13(7):1975-80. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/13.7.1975. View

Taylor P, Lewinthal D, Leader A, Pattinson H . A comparison of Dextran 70 with carbon dioxide as the distention medium for hysteroscopy in patients with infertility or requesting reversal of a prior tubal sterilization. Fertil Steril. 1987; 47(5):861-3. DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)59180-8. View

Hamilton J, Larson A, Lower A, Hasnain S, Grudzinskas J . Routine use of saline hysterosonography in 500 consecutive, unselected, infertile women. Hum Reprod. 1998; 13(9):2463-73. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/13.9.2463. View

Jurkovic D, Geipel A, Gruboeck K, Jauniaux E, Natucci M, Campbell S . Three-dimensional ultrasound for the assessment of uterine anatomy and detection of congenital anomalies: a comparison with hysterosalpingography and two-dimensional sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1995; 5(4):233-7. DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1995.05040233.x. View

Tomazevic T, Ban-Frangez H, Ribic-Pucelj M, Premru-Srsen T, Verdenik I . Small uterine septum is an important risk variable for preterm birth. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006; 135(2):154-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.12.001. View

Blumenthal N, Hertzanu Y, Ferreira M, Mendelsohn D, Goldberger S . Hysterosalpingography in the assessment of infertility in black patients. S Afr Med J. 1984; 65(21):854-6. View

10.

Ugur M, Karakaya S, Zorlu G, Arslan S, Gulerman C, Kukner S . Polycystic ovaries in association with müllerian anomalies. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1995; 62(1):57-9. DOI: 10.1016/0301-2115(95)02157-3. View

11.

Woelfer B, Salim R, Banerjee S, Elson J, Regan L, Jurkovic D . Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies detected by three-dimensional ultrasound screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 98(6):1099-103. DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(01)01599-x. View

12.

Dendrinos S, Grigoriou O, Sakkas E, Makrakis E, Creatsas G . Hysteroscopy in the evaluation of habitual abortions. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2008; 13(2):198-200. DOI: 10.1080/13625180801920032. View

13.

Nasri M, Setchell M, Chard T . Transvaginal ultrasound for diagnosis of uterine malformations. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990; 97(11):1043-5. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1990.tb02480.x. View

14.

Olpin J, Heilbrun M . Imaging of Müllerian duct anomalies. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 52(1):40-56. DOI: 10.1097/GRF.0b013e3181958439. View

15.

Akar M, Bayar D, Yildiz S, Ozel M, Yilmaz Z . Reproductive outcome of women with unicornuate uterus. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005; 45(2):148-50. DOI: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2005.00346.x. View

16.

Kupesic S . Clinical implications of sonographic detection of uterine anomalies for reproductive outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 18(4):387-400. DOI: 10.1046/j.0960-7692.2001.00539.x. View

17.

Kupesic S, Kurjak A, Skenderovic S, Bjelos D . Screening for uterine abnormalities by three-dimensional ultrasound improves perinatal outcome. J Perinat Med. 2002; 30(1):9-17. DOI: 10.1515/JPM.2002.002. View

18.

Carrington B, Hricak H, Nuruddin R, Secaf E, Laros Jr R, Hill E . Müllerian duct anomalies: MR imaging evaluation. Radiology. 1990; 176(3):715-20. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.176.3.2202012. View

19.

Acien P . Incidence of Müllerian defects in fertile and infertile women. Hum Reprod. 1997; 12(7):1372-6. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a019588. View

20.

Byrne J, Taylor W, Rubin A, Hill M, ODonnell R, Shulman S . Prevalence of Müllerian duct anomalies detected at ultrasound. Am J Med Genet. 2000; 94(1):9-12. DOI: 10.1002/1096-8628(20000904)94:1<9::aid-ajmg3>3.0.co;2-h. View