|
Images
in Women's Health
September 2004
Infertility Due to Uterine Anomaly
Elizabeth Puscheck, MD, MS
CASE HISTORY
A 29-year-old woman, gravida 1, para 0, presented with infertility
of 2 years' duration. Her menstrual cycles were regular, and
ovulation had been confirmed by ovulation prediction kits and
midluteal pro-gesterone levels. The patient had undergone an
uncomplicated first-trimester abortion several years earlier.
She had no personal or family history of miscarriage, and her
medical and surgical histories were likewise negative. Her husband
was 30 years of age and healthy, and had never fathered any children.
His semen analyses are notable for mild oligospermia (15 to 18
million/mL); other parameters were within normal limits.
A brief ultrasound was performed during her physical examination
and it appeared normal. A hysterosalpingogram was ordered and
the image is present below.
|

Click
to enlarge |
Figure. Hysterosalpingography
was performed, revealing the image presented here. |
DIAGNOSIS
This image is most consistent with a congenital T-shaped uterus.
Without calculation of uterine volume, ultrasonography did not
suggest a T-shaped uterus. However, hysterosalpingography (HSG)
is the preferred modality for making this diagnosis.1 The
family history was reviewed again, but there was no indication
that the patient's mother received diethylstilbestrol (DES),
and she denied using DES during her pregnancy with this patient
or at any other time. Overall, her mother's pregnancies were
uncomplicated except for mild hyperemesis gravidarum, which was
well controlled and did not require hospitalization.
DISCUSSION
Typically, the occurrence of a T-shaped uterus is associated
with DES exposure in utero. Indeed, on review of the literature,
no cases were found reporting a T-shaped uterus without DES exposure.
However, it makes biologic sense that a T-shaped uterus may occur
naturally or with exposures other than DES.
This patient was initially treated with clomiphene citrate (CC)
and intrauterine inseminations. Each cycle had excellent follicular
growth with two to four mature follicles, but the endometrial
thickness remained at less than 4 mm. Supplemental estrogen was
administered orally and then vaginally, with minimal response.
There was concern about the possibility of intrauterine adhesions,
as the lining of a T-shaped uterus would be expected to respond
to estrogen.2
In this patient, HSG showed no evidence of adhesions. Hysteroscopy
was considered to evaluate and treat any adhesions, or possibly
to correct the T-shaped uterus as described in a limited case
series report,3 but this procedure was deferred. After
several unsuccessful CC cycles, gonadotropin-releasing hormone
therapy was initiated with insemination. The follicular response
was excellent, and the endometrial lining attained a depth of
more than 5 mm. The patient conceived a singleton pregnancy,
and fetal heart motion was detected at 6.5 weeks' gestation.
Her cervix remained long and closed, and no cerclage was required.4 There
were no episodes of preterm labor, and the patient delivered
a healthy infant at 38 weeks' gestation.
Elizabeth Puscheck, MD, MS, is assistant professor, Department
of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Wayne State University Medical School,
Detroit, Mich.
References
- Kipersztok S, Javitt M, Hill MC, Stillman
RJ. Comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and transvaginal
ultrasonography with hysterosalpingography in the evaluation
of women exposed to diethylstilbestrol. J Reprod Med. 1996;
41(5):347-351.
- Noyes N, Liu HC, Sultan K, Rosenwaks
Z. Endometrial pattern in diethylstilboestrol-exposed women
undergoing in-vitro fertilization may be the most significant
predictor of pregnancy outcome. Hum Reprod. 1996;11(12):2719-2723.
- Katz Z, Ben-Arie A, Lurie S, Manor
M, Insler V. Beneficial effect of hysteroscopic metroplasty
on the reproductive outcome in a ‘T-shaped' uterus. Gynecol
Obstet Invest. 1996; 41(1):41-43.
- Golan A, Langer R, Neuman M, Wexler
S, Segev E, David MP. Obstetric outcome in women with congenital
uterine malformations. J Reprod Med. 1992;37(3):233-236.
back to top
|