Undescended ovary and fallopian tube presenting as appendiceal mucocele

Undescended ovary is a rare congenital gynecologic condition, frequently associated with urogenital malformations including unicornuate uterus and ectopic kidneys or renal agenesis. Although ectopic ovaries are mostly found during an infertility work up, its role in infertility is still unknown. We report a 38-year-old patient presenting with pain in the right lower quadrant. Explorative laparoscopy reveals a unicornuate uterus and a malpositioning of the right ovary and distal ending of the right fallopian tube. Through this report, we try to provide hints for guiding the diagnostic management of similar patients in terms of fertility, renal function and tumour formation.

The Thessaloniki ESHRE/ESGE consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies

STUDY QUESTION

What is the recommended diagnostic work-up of female genital anomalies according to the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE)/European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) system?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The ESHRE/ESGE consensus for the diagnosis of female genital anomalies is presented.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Accurate diagnosis of congenital anomalies still remains a clinical challenge because of the drawbacks of the previous classification systems and the non-systematic use of diagnostic methods with varying accuracy, some of them quite inaccurate. Currently, a wide range of non-invasive diagnostic procedures are available enriching the opportunity to accurately detect the anatomical status of the female genital tract, as well as a new objective and comprehensive classification system with well-described classes and sub-classes.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The ESHRE/ESGE CONgenital UTerine Anomalies (CONUTA) Working Group established an initiative with the goal of developing a consensus for the diagnosis of female genital anomalies. The CONUTA working group and imaging experts in the field have been appointed to run the project.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The consensus is developed based on: (i) evaluation of the currently available diagnostic methods and, more specifically, of their characteristics with the use of the experts panel consensus method and of their diagnostic accuracy by performing a systematic review of evidence and (ii) consensus for the definition of where and how to measure uterine wall thickness and the recommendations for the diagnostic work-up of female genital anomalies, based on the results of the previous evaluation procedure, with the use of the experts panel consensus method.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Uterine wall thickness is defined as the distance between the interostial line and external uterine profile at the midcoronal plane of the uterus; alternatively, if a coronal plane is not available, the mean anterior and posterior uterine wall thickness at the longitudinal plane could be used. Gynecological examination and two-dimensional ultrasound (2D US) are recommended for the evaluation of asymptomatic women. Three-dimensional (3D) US is recommended for the diagnosis of female genital anomalies in 'symptomatic' patients belonging to high risk groups for the presence of a female genital anomaly and in any asymptomatic woman suspected to have an anomaly from routine evaluation. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endoscopic evaluation are recommended for the subgroup of patients with suspected complex anomalies or in diagnostic dilemmas. Adolescents with symptoms suggestive for the presence of a female genital anomaly should be thoroughly evaluated with 2D US, 3D US, MRI and endoscopically.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The various diagnostic methods should always be used in the proper way and evaluated by experts to avoid mis-, over- and underdiagnosis.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The role of a combined US examination and outpatient hysteroscopy should be prospectively evaluated. It is a challenge for further research, based on diagnosis, to objectively evaluate the clinical consequences related to various degrees of uterine deformity.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

None.

Müllerian duct anomalies diagnosed by saline contrast sonohysterography: prevalence in a general population

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the prevalence of uterine müllerian duct anomalies in a general population.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

University hospital in collaboration with the Danish Civil Registry.

PATIENT(S)

A total of 1,654 women randomly recruited from a general population; 686 women were eligible and accepted inclusion (429 pre- and 257 postmenopausal). Saline contrast sonohysterography (SCSH) was finally performed in 622 women (aged 20-74 years) (the procedure was impossible owing to cervical stenosis in 58, contraindicated in 2, other patient-related factors in 4).

INTERVENTION(S)

The shape of the uterus was dynamically evaluated in the transversal and longitudinal planes during SCSH and classified in accordance with American Fertility Society as normal, arcuate, septate (partial, complete), bicorn (partial, complete), or unicorn. History of previous miscarriage and menstrual cycle was obtained by a questionnaire.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Prevalence of müllerian anomalies, miscarriage, and oligomenorrhea.

RESULT(S)

The overall prevalence of müllerian anomalies was 9.8% (61 of 622) (95% confidence interval [CI] 7.5-12.1). The majority had arcuate uteri (n=42, 6.8%), 17 partial septate (2.7%), 1 complete septate (1.6%), and 1 unicorn uterus (1.6%). Müllerian anomalies were significantly more frequently diagnosed in nulliparous (20% [26 of 128]) compared with parous women (7% [35 of 494]). Müllerian anomalies were more frequent in women with oligomenorrhea compared with women with normal menstrual periods (19% [15 of 79] vs. 10% [34 of 339]). One first-trimester miscarriage or multiple miscarriages (more than one) were not significantly more frequent in premenopausal women with müllerian anomalies compared with women with normal-shaped uteri (24% [6 of 25] vs. 22% [57 of 265]).

CONCLUSION(S)

In a general population examined by SCSH the prevalence of Müllerian anomalies is estimated at 9.8%. Müllerian anomalies were more frequent in nulliparous women. Both impaired fertility and a pregnancy-associated modulation of the uterine corpus are among explanations. Müllerian anomalies were associated with oligomenorrhea in premenopausal women. In this general population there was no association between miscarriage and müllerian anomalies; however, the number of cases was limited.