Next Article in Journal
Early Single-Center Experience of DaVinci® Single-Port (SP) Robotic Surgery in Colorectal Patients
Next Article in Special Issue
Dysmenorrhea in Polish Adolescent Girls: Impact on Physical, Mental, and Social Well-Being—Results from POLKA 18 Study
Previous Article in Journal
Can the Pathological Response in Patients with Locally Advanced Gastric Cancer Receiving Neoadjuvant Treatment Be Predicted by the CEA/Albumin and CRP/Albumin Ratios?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 13
Issue 10
10.3390/jcm13102988
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Applicability and Suitability of the Embryological–Clinical Classification of Female Genital Malformations: A Systematic Review

by
Victoria Navarro
1,2,
Maribel Acién
2,3,4,5,* and
Pedro Acién
4
1
Obstetrics and Gynecology Service, Elda University Hospital, 03600 Elda, Alicante, Spain
2
Reproductive Biopathologies Mixed Research Unit FISABIO-UA-UMH, 03550 San Juan, Alicante, Spain
3
Obstetrics and Gynecology Service, San Juan University Hospital, 03550 San Juan, Alicante, Spain
4
Division of Gynecology, Miguel Hernández University, Campus of San Juan, 03550 San Juan, Alicante, Spain
5
Grant Next Generation EU-EGA Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, London WC1E 6DE, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(10), 2988; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13102988
Submission received: 17 March 2024 / Revised: 13 May 2024 / Accepted: 16 May 2024 / Published: 19 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Collection Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Complex urogenital malformations are clinically highly relevant; thus, they must be appropriately diagnosed and classified before initiating treatment. Background/Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the applicability and suitability of the embryological–clinical classification of female genital malformations. Methods: A systematic review of cases of genital malformations reported in the literature from 2000 to 2020 was conducted. Case reports and series with the following combinations: “female genital tract” AND (malformation OR anomaly OR müllerian anomaly OR uterine anomaly OR cervical anomaly OR vaginal anomaly OR cloacal anomaly OR urogenital sinus); and “female genital tract” AND (renal agenesis OR ectopic ureter) were searched. A total of 3124 articles were identified, of which 824 cases of genital malformation were extracted. The characteristics of each malformation were included in a database for further analyses. Results: Using the embryological–clinical classification, 89.9% of the published cases and 86.5% of the 52 cases defined as unclassifiable by their authors have been classified in this review. In 73 cases (72.2%), the classification of the malformation using the AFS system was incomplete because although the type of uterine anomaly of the AFS classification matched that of the embryological–clinical classification, characteristics of the urinary system or the vagina were overlooked when using the AFS system. Following a dispersion matrix, we have been able to show that the embryological–clinical classification system is able to classify and subclassify the genitourinary malformations more accurately. Conclusions: The applicability of the embryological–clinical classification has been confirmed after classifying most of the cases of genital malformation previously published. This system also provides a more complete and accurate classification than other classifying systems exclusively based on Müllerian duct development or uterovaginal parameters, demonstrating its suitability.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Female genital malformations commonly occur in 3% of all women, 4% of infertile women, and 15% of those who recurrently experience miscarriages [1]. However, and although they are not always detected, these frequencies mainly refer to common genital malformations that affect the uterine cavity and have an impact on reproductive outcomes.
On the contrary, complex genital malformations which also affect the urinary system or other levels of the genital tract are rare but may lead to significant gynecological symptoms that severely affect the patient’s quality of life, specially at adolescence when menses start. Classifying female genital malformations requires knowledge of embryology of the female genital tract, of the involvement of all elements derived from the urogenital ridge, and of the Müllerian duct development, fusion, and resorption processes. The scientific literature tends to follow classifications based on Müllerian duct development, such as the American Fertility Society (AFS) system [2], recently updated in the American Society of Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) classification [3], or the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE)/European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) [4] consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. However, these classifications are solely Müllerian (utero or uterovaginal) and provide no information regarding the origin of the malformations. Conversely, the embryological–clinical classification of female genital malformations proposed by Acién in 1992—modified in 2004 [5] and updated in 2011 [6]—is based on the correlation between the embryological origin of the malformation and its anatomical anomaly observed throughout the female genital tract, including the urinary system, for a complete diagnosis, with the goal of proposing the most appropriate typification and adequate therapeutic intervention (full classification available in Supplemental Material).
Several embryological parameters should be considered to adequately manage female genital malformations. The appropriate development, fusion, and resorption of the separating wall between both Müllerian ducts seem to be induced by the Wolffian ducts. The fused Müllerian ducts form the uterus up to the external cervical os, and the inducing mesonephric ducts form the sinuvaginal bulbs, incorporate the Müllerian tubercle’s cells, and give rise to the vaginal plate [7,8]. Because the ureteral bud sprouts from the opening of the Wolffian duct in the urogenital sinus, the absence or distal injury of one of these ducts will give rise to renal agenesis, a blind or atretic ipsilateral hemivagina and a uterine anomaly (fusion or resorption defect), due to a failure of the inducing function of the injured Wolffian duct. In the absence of the formation and caudal growth of the urogenital wedge, there is persistent urogenital sinus, and then, the opening of the vagina into the sinus can be seen as a vesicovaginal fistula just underneath and between both ureteral orifices [6]. Interruptions in this embryological process at any point may lead to various congenital anomalies of the reproductive system [9]. Because the formation of the urinary system is closely related to the formation of the reproductive tract, abnormalities of the kidneys, ureters, or bladder are often associated with abnormalities of the genital tract. In a study, Diehl et al. [10] stated that further evaluating the urinary system is important secondary research. However, this evaluation is not secondary research but a fundamental part of the research of malformations, given the relationship between the genital and urinary systems, which share a common embryological origin.
This study aimed to assess the advisability of the embryological–clinical classification of female genital malformations [6]; for this purpose, the applicability and suitability were determined. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of cases of genital malformation reported in the literature for 20 years to determine whether these cases had been classified or not using the AFS [2] or ESHRE/ESGE [4] systems and tried to classify them with the embryological–clinical classification. We also checked if this system was more specific when typifying the anomalies.
The objectives of this study were to determine the following:
  • applicability of the embryological–clinical classification [6] by assessing the percentage of malformations that can be classified using this method following the details of the anomaly as described in the articles retrieved from the literature.
  • suitability of the embryological–clinical classification [6] by assessing whether it is more complete and more accurate when applied to a malformation with respect to the AFS [2] or ESHRE/ESGE [4] classification systems.

2. Materials and Methods

A systematic literature research was performed in the PubMed and Cochrane Databases, including 20 years (from 2000 to 2020) and all case reports and case series with the following combinations:
  • “female genital tract” AND (malformation OR anomaly OR müllerian anomaly OR uterine anomaly OR cervical anomaly OR vaginal anomaly OR cloacal anomaly OR urogenital sinus).
  • “female genital tract” AND (renal agenesis OR ectopic ureter).
This systematic review commenced in February 2021 and was completed in April 2023. The selection process started with a total of 3124 articles. This process included two exclusion phases: the first phase consisted of selecting articles by title that showed the presentation of a malformation, which was independently performed by the three authors, and collecting the articles that had been selected by at least two of the three authors, thus narrowing the search to 1219 articles (39% of the initial sample); the second phase consisted of selecting articles, by summary, whose content focused on the description of the malformation, limiting the search to 858 research articles (27% of the initial sample), which have been individually evaluated for data extraction. This second phase was carried out by one author, and the others checked for agreement.
Of the 858 selected articles, the full text of 88 was inaccessible and, therefore, were disregarded for unavailability. The full text of the remaining 770 articles (24% of the initial total) was read, and 76 whose content did not include the description of the malformation were disregarded. Of the remaining 694 articles, we were able to extract a total of 824 described cases as some studies described various cases and types of malformations (Figure 1).
Each of these malformations was analyzed, and their descriptions, according to the following variables, were entered into an Excel spreadsheet (Excel Version 16.85 (24051214), Microsoft Office for Mac, Madrid, Spain):
  • Characteristics of the uterus
  • Characteristics of the cervix
  • Characteristics of the vagina
  • Renal agenesis (RA)
  • Diagnostic tests
  • Classification (or not) of the malformation by the authors of the article and the system used for this purpose
  • Classification of the malformation according to the embryological–clinical classification [6]
  • Match (or not) between both classifications (the classification used by the authors of the article selected in the systematic review and the embryological–clinical classification)
The three authors commented on the most complex cases to reach a consensus on the classification of all malformations.

3. Results

3.1. Applicability

Of a total of 824 cases, the malformations had been classified by the authors of the articles in 159 cases (19.3%): using the AFS classification in 101 (63.5%) cases; using the embryological–clinical classification in 20 (12.6%) cases; using the ESHRE/ESGE classification in 16 (10.1%) cases; and using more than one classification in 22 (13.8%) cases. The authors had specified that they were unable to classify 52 malformations (6.3%): 32 (61.5%) using the AFS; 1 (1.9%) using the ESHRE/ESGE classification; 5 (9.6%) using any current classification; and 4 (7.7%) using an unknown classification system (not specified). Of the total number of cases, no classification was proposed in 613 malformations (74.4%) (Table 1).
After reviewing the descriptions of 824 cases of malformations, we classified 741 cases (89.9%) following the embryological–clinical classification and 559 (91.2%) of the 613 that were not classified by the authors in their articles (Table 2).
In total, 63 cases (7.6%) were grouped as “inconclusive” due to the lack of essential data in the descriptions of the malformation retrieved from the publication. This was a series of cases missing some key anatomical data, preventing the differentiation between two classification groups, primarily due to a lack of information on the urinary system. This lack of information precludes the differentiation between common Müllerian anomalies (group 3.A.2 of the embryological–clinical classification, which does not involve renal agenesis) versus mesonephric or Wolffian anomalies (uterine duplication with vaginal atresia or blind hemivagina and ipsilateral renal agenesis -group 2-, or unilateral genitourinary agenesis or hypoplasia -group 1.2-). In this group, a few cases lacked descriptions of the uterus, cervix, and/or vagina; thus, they might have involved more than one type of malformation, precluding the correct classification of the case [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71]. In addition, 20 cases were not classified using the embryological–clinical classification system—four because we considered that a genital malformation was not demonstrated [72,73,74,75] and 16 because the case description lacked sufficient details to guide any classification.
Of the 52 cases defined in their respective papers by the authors as “unclassifiable”, we were able to classify 45 cases (86.5%) using the embryological–clinical classification. As for the remaining cases, after their revision, we concluded that one case was not a genital malformation and that the other six were incompletely described, preventing their correct classification. Table 3 shows the characteristics of the “unclassifiable” malformations according to their authors [10,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106] and their classification group according to the embryological–clinical classification system.
Finally, uterine duplicity with a blind hemivagina (or atresia) and ipsilateral RA (malformation 2.1 of the embryological–clinical classification) were the most frequently described malformations in the literature, which accounted for 128 of the 731 classified cases, followed by 100 cases of urogenital sinus abnormalities.

3.2. Suitability

In this section, we analyzed the completeness and accuracy of the classifications provided in the original publications, assessing whether the original classification matched that of the embryological–clinical classification system. With the AFS classification, 101 cases of genital malformation were described (see Table 1). Among them, only 20 cases matched the embryological–clinical classification, eight did not match each other; in 73 cases [17,19,21,24,29,36,42,44,45,50,58,61,62,68,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158], the classification of the malformation using this system was incomplete because although the type of uterine anomaly of the AFS classification matched that of the embryological–clinical classification, characteristics of the urinary system or the vagina were overlooked when using the AFS system. Thus, the embryological–clinical classification was more complete.
As for the ESHRE/ESGE classification, of 16 cases defined using this method (see Table 1), six matched the embryological–clinical classification, six did not match either classification, and four cases [159,160,161,162] presented an incomplete classification using the ESHRE/ESGE system by overlooking RA or failing to describe the cervix and the vagina.
Despite the clear trend of non-classification, AFS is the most frequently used classification system in the literature. However, the subtypes in the classification of female genital tract malformations that we were able to identify using the embryological–clinical classification are more specific or precise that those reported by authors using AFS. The dispersion matrix (Table 4) shows that we were able to more accurately classify and subclassify. For example, the 30 cases that were classified as type III according to the AFS system (didelphys uteri) could be subclassified according to whether these double uteri were associated or not with RA (1 isolated didelphys uterus), communication between both hemiuteri (1 not communicating), and characteristics of the vagina (23 blind), among other characteristics. In other words, the embryological–clinical classification provided a more accurate classification of female genital tract malformations than the other classification systems.

4. Discussion

This study shows a non-classification trend in the literature. Although AFS [2] has been the most used classification system, probably influenced by its publication year and the study period of this review, many other classification systems have been proposed for classifying complex female genital malformations (ESHRE/ESGE [4] and VCUAM [163], among others). However, only the embryological–clinical classification system analyses embryological alterations to understand malformations.
In 2015, Di Spiezio Sardo et al. [164] published a systematic review of cases of malformation. They claimed that the ESHRE/ESGE classification provided a complete description and classification of almost all known anomalies that had not been correctly classified using the AFS system. The authors grouped the cases retrieved from articles by type of malformation, not by number, which might have contributed to the favorable results. As they defined, a key characteristic of an “ideal” classification system is to be comprehensive, encompassing all possible variants and providing a clear description and classification. However, neither the ESHRE/ESGE nor the AFS classification systems can be considered comprehensive because they either classify anomalies overlooking embryological parameters, that is, without establishing a relationship between all components of the genitourinary system, and they are incomplete by being solely based on uterine or uterovaginal anomalies.
Towards solving this problem, the ASRM has recently published an update of the AFS classification aimed at maintaining the simplicity of the system while simultaneously expanding the classification to include anomaly categories [3]. Yet, surprisingly, this update has disregarded state-of-the-art genitourinary embryology concepts, instead focusing on morphological abnormalities of the Müllerian ducts and overlooking the entire urogenital crest, urogenital sinus, and gubernaculum [7,165]. Imaging the malformation should help us in the etiological and pathogenic diagnosis of the observed anomaly and possible associated anomalies. However, neither the recent American nor the European classification systems perform it. And images need to be appropriately interpreted, which cannot always be done without the correct context.
In this systematic review, instead, using the descriptions retrieved from articles published in the literature and the embryological–clinical classification, we have been able to classify a high percentage of anomalies (89.9%), even those previously defined as unclassifiable by their authors. Only the malformations with missing data on their description or a fundamental characteristic of their origin have not been classified in this study. These results demonstrate the high applicability and its diagnostic capacity by shedding light on aspects of the malformation that remain unclear when using other classification systems.
In addition, we also highlight the completeness and higher accuracy of the embryological–clinical classification. Using this system, we were able to differentiate one AFS [2] classification group into five groups. Therefore, according to data on the renal system, characteristics of the vagina or cervix, considered in the embryological–clinical classification, enable much more refining of the subclassification type within a group of uterine anomalies. This refinement may have implications for reproductive results, as demonstrated in the study by Acién et al. [166], which showed that the reproductive prognosis is more successful for a given type of uterine anomaly in patients with associated RA.
Although the usefulness of the embryological–clinical classification system is not the aim of this research as it has been previously addressed in other papers by our group [167], as shown in this study, the lack of data on the renal system prevents us from being able to adequately classify some malformations when using the embryological–clinical system. This and the anatomical details of the cervix and vagina are necessary for its use, to understand the reason for the anomalies, the correct interpretation of the images [168] or maybe even to find the most appropriate surgical solution for the patient [167] specially in the most complex cases [169,170,171].
The most complex cases are the most published in the literature. First, uterine duplicity with a blind hemivagina (or atresia) and ipsilateral RA, which account for 128 of the 731 cases classified in the literature, followed by urogenital sinus abnormalities (100 cases). In both situations, the authors most likely decide to publish a case report because of their striking description.
We have detected two published cases of genital malformations whose diagnosis has generated disagreement. Briosa et al. [172] have described a case of suspicion of Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser (MRKH) syndrome for uterine duplication with a normal left hemiuterus and a right non-communicating cavitated rudimentary horn, single cervix and vagina, and right RA, suggesting not only a Müllerian but also a Wolffian anomaly (type 2.5 of the embryological–clinical classification [6]). Capito et al. [173] have described menstrual retention in a Robert’s uterus; however, the anomaly was a non-communicating cavity, with hematometra, and without connection to the fallopian tube, suggesting an accessory and cavitated uterine mass (type 4 of the embryological–clinical classification [6]), not an asymmetric uterine septum. Accordingly, we insist that knowing the correct genitourinary embryology is essential for studying, diagnosing, and subsequently treating genital malformations, especially complex malformations that lead to early gynecological and later reproductive problems, particularly in young adolescent patients [167]. This knowledge is maintained by the clinical–embryological classification system through the comprehension of the malformation as a whole.

4.1. Strengths and Limitations

Several case reports fail to describe the complete anomaly, ignoring crucial characteristics for its classification. Besides that, the most complex cases are the most published in the literature, indicating a bias.
On the other hand, the non-classification trend implies another limitation for this study, since this fact has prevented us from further study of the suitability assessment.
Some cases, especially those with anomalies that affect the connection between Müllerian ducts and Müllerian tubercle, may apparently not fit into the embryological–clinical classification, showing that this classification system necessitates additional review and update.

4.2. Interpretation

Female genital malformations may lead to significant gynecological symptoms. The malformation itself, as well as the management to solve the symptoms, can also compromise the reproductive health of patients. The embryological–clinical classification system supports the embryological origin of female genital malformations to better understand the clinical cases allowing an appropriate and individualized therapeutic approach [167].
Considering the above, the embryological–clinical classification system for female genital malformations may surpass the limitations of other classification systems because embryological analysis should be the basis for understanding and investigating malformations of the female genitourinary tract, especially complex anomalies. Knowing the embryological background may enable the physicians to more adequately counsel and treat each case [167].
This study demonstrates the applicability and suitability of the embryological–clinical classification system when classifying anomalies of the female genital tract. A system based on this foundation empowers physicians with an effective and comprehensive tool for classifying nearly all currently known anomalies of the female genital tract.

5. Conclusions

AFS has been the most used classification system, but using the embryological–clinical classification to analyze descriptions of female genital anomalies published in case reports, we have been able to classify 89.9% of cases, as well as 86.5% of cases defined as unclassifiable in those studies. Therefore, the embryological–clinical classification is highly applicable. Similarly, we have shown the completeness and higher accuracy of this classification, which makes it possible to specify and subclassify more cases than the other systems. As such, the embryological–clinical classification is considered more suitable.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm13102988/s1, Supplementary Materials: Embryological-clinical classification.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: M.A., P.A. and V.N. Methodology: V.N. Software, V.N. Validation: P.A., M.A. and V.N. Formal analysis: V.N. Investigation: V.N. Writing and original draft preparation: V.N. Writing, review, and editing: all authors. Supervision: M.A. and P.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The publication of this research was supported by Miguel Hernández University.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable. This systematic review was not prospectively registered.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors on request.

Acknowledgments

Graphical abstract was created with BioRender.com.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Acién, P. Incidence of Müllerian Defects in Fertile and Infertile Women. Hum. Reprod. 1997, 12, 1372–1376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. American Fertility Society. The American Fertility Society Classifications of Adnexal Adhesions, Distal Tubal Occlusion, Tubal Occlusion Secondary to Tubal Ligation, Tubal Pregnancies, Müllerian Anomalies and Intrauterine Adhesions. Fertil. Steril. 1988, 49, 944–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Pfeifer, S.M.; Attaran, M.; Goldstein, J.; Lindheim, S.R.; Petrozza, J.C.; Rackow, B.W.; Siegelman, E.; Troiano, R.; Winter, T.; Zuckerman, A.; et al. ASRM Müllerian Anomalies Classification 2021. Fertil. Steril. 2021, 116, 1238–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Grimbizis, G.F.; Gordts, S.; Di Spiezio Sardo, A.; Brucker, S.; De Angelis, C.; Gergolet, M.; Li, T.-C.; Tanos, V.; Brölmann, H.; Gianaroli, L.; et al. The ESHRE/ESGE Consensus on the Classification of Female Genital Tract Congenital Anomalies. Hum. Reprod. 2013, 28, 2032–2044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Acién, P.; Acién, M.; Sánchez-Ferrer, M. Complex Malformations of the Female Genital Tract. New Types and Revision of Classification. Hum. Reprod. 2004, 19, 2377–2384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Acién, P.; Acién, M.I. The History of Female Genital Tract Malformation Classifications and Proposal of an Updated System. Hum. Reprod. Update 2011, 17, 693–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Acién, P. Embryological Observations on the Female Genital Tract. Hum. Reprod. 1992, 7, 437–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sánchez-Ferrer, M.L.; Acién, M.I.; del Campo, F.; Mayol-Belda, M.J.; Acién, P. Experimental Contributions to the Study of the Embryology of the Vagina. Hum. Reprod. 2006, 21, 1623–1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Laufer, M.R. Congenital Anomalies of the Hymen and Vagina. Available online: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/congenital-anomalies-of-the-hymen-and-vagina (accessed on 8 June 2023).
  10. Diehl, C.L.; Gavrilova-Jordan, L.P.; Coddington, C.C. Acute Abdominal Pain as a Result of a Ruptured Hematosalpinx: A Rare Complication of an Unusual Müllerian Anomaly. J. Pediatr. Adolesc. Gynecol. 2009, 22, e9–e11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Enatsu, A.; Harada, T.; Yoshida, S.; Iwabe, T.; Terakawa, N. Adenomyosis in a Patient with the Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser Syndrome. Fertil. Steril. 2000, 73, 862–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kore, S.; Pandole, A.; Akolekar, R.; Vaidya, N.; Ambiye, V.R. Rupture of Left Horn of Bicornuate Uterus at Twenty Weeks of Gestation. J. Postgrad. Med. 2000, 46, 39–40. [Google Scholar]
  13. Soundararajan, V.; Rai, J. Laparoscopic Removal of a Rudimentary Uterine Horn during Pregnancy. A Case Report. J. Reprod. Med. 2000, 45, 599–602. [Google Scholar]
  14. Hiroi, H.; Yasugi, T.; Matsumoto, K.; Fujii, T.; Watanabe, T.; Yoshikawa, H.; Taketani, Y. Mucinous Adenocarcinoma Arising in a Neovagina Using the Sigmoid Colon Thirty Years after Operation: A Case Report. J. Surg. Oncol. 2001, 77, 61–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Moura, M.D.; Navarro, P.A.; Nogueira, A.A. Pregnancy and Term Delivery after Neovaginoplasty in a Patient with Vaginal Agenesis. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2000, 71, 215–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bellver-Pradas, J.; Cervera-Sánchez, J.; Boldó-Roda, A.; Martín-Cortés, A.; Ferreres-Gómez, L.; Serra-Serra, V.; Romeu-Sarrió, A. Silver-Russell Syndrome Associated to Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser Syndrome, Diabetes and Hirsutism. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2001, 265, 155–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Pasini, A.; Alfieri, L.; Belloni, C. Spontaneous ectopic contralateral pregnancy with unicornuate uterus. A case report. Minerva Ginecol. 2001, 53, 215–218. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  18. Dorairajan, L.N.; Roby, G.; Kumar, S.; Singh, H.; Gowri, D. Exstrophy of Bladder Associated with Unilateral Renal Agenesis and Bicornuate Uterus: A Case Report. Int. Urogynecol. J. Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2001, 12, 410–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Smolders, D.; Deckers, F.; Pouillon, M.; Vanderheyden, T.; Vanderheyden, J.; De Schepper, A. Ectopic Pregnancy within a Rudimentary Horn in a Case of Unicornuate Uterus. Eur. Radiol. 2002, 12, 121–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Adolph, A.J.; Gilliland, G.B. Fertility Following Laparoscopic Removal of Rudimentary Horn with an Ectopic Pregnancy. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 2002, 24, 575–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zaaijman, J. du T. Müllerian Anomaly with a Difference. S. Afr. Med. J. 2002, 92, 667. [Google Scholar]
  22. Daskalakis, G.; Pilalis, A.; Lykeridou, K.; Antsaklis, A. Rupture of Noncommunicating Rudimentary Uterine Horn Pregnancy. Obstet. Gynecol. 2002, 100, 1108–1110. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  23. Lammes, F.B. Diagnostic image (112). A girl with non-appearing menarche. Uterine and vaginal aplasia (Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome). Ned. Tijdschr. Geneeskd. 2002, 146, 2082. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  24. Yan, C.M.; Mok, K.M. Uterine Fibroids and Adenomyosis in a Woman with Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser Syndrome. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2002, 22, 561–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Aydos, S.; Tükün, A.; Bökesoy, I. Gonadal Dysgenesis and the Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser Syndrome in a Girl with 46,X,Del(X)(Pter→q22:). Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2003, 267, 173–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Ombelet, W.; Verswijvel, G.; de Jonge, E. Ectopic Ovary and Unicornuate Uterus. N. Engl. J. Med. 2003, 348, 667–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Haliloglu, M.; Eryilmaz, M.; Karnak, I.; Tanyel, F.C. Fistula between Rectum and Duplicated Vagina in an Infant with Anorectal Malformation and Biliary Atresia. Pediatr. Radiol. 2003, 33, 75–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Edmonds, D.K. Multiple Fibroids in a Postmenopausal Woman with Mayer Rokitansky Kuster Hauser Syndrome. J. Pediatr. Adolesc. Gynecol. 2003, 16, 65–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Ejnès, L.; Desprez, B.; Bongain, A.; Gillet, J.Y. Twin pregnancy in a unicornuate uterus with a rudimentary horn. Gynecol. Obstet. Fertil. 2003, 31, 627–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Cutner, A.; Saridogan, E.; Hart, R.; Pandya, P.; Creighton, S. Laparoscopic Management of Pregnancies Occurring in Non-Communicating Accessory Uterine Horns. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2004, 113, 106–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Dhouib, M.; Guirat, N. Pregnancy in a rudimentary uterine horn. Presse Med. 2004, 33, 321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bradshaw, H.; Stewart, P. Failed Medical Termination of Pregnancy Associated with Implantation in a Non-Communicating Uterine Horn. J. Fam. Plann. Reprod. Health Care 2004, 30, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Tsafrir, A.; Rojansky, N.; Sela, H.Y.; Gomori, J.M.; Nadjari, M. Rudimentary Horn Pregnancy: First-Trimester Prerupture Sonographic Diagnosis and Confirmation by Magnetic Resonance Imaging. J. Ultrasound Med. 2005, 24, 219–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Tang, R.; Sheng, Y.; Chen, Z.J. Rupture of Pregnancy in a Communicating Rudimentary Uterine Horn after in Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2004, 86, 394–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Shinohara, A.; Yamada, A.; Imai, A. Rupture of Noncommunicating Rudimentary Uterine Horn at 27 Weeks’ Gestation with Neonatal and Maternal Survival. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2005, 88, 316–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Atmaca, R.; Germen, A.T.; Burak, F.; Kafkasli, A. Acute Abdomen in a Case with Noncommunicating Rudimentary Horn and Unicornuate Uterus. JSLS 2005, 9, 235–237. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  37. Kives, S.L.; Bond, S.J.; Lara-Torre, E. Müllerian Agenesis and Ovarian Torsion. A Case Report and Review of Literature. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2005, 40, 1326–1328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Lotan, G.; Mashiach, R.; Halevy, A. Total Endoscopic Vaginal Reconstruction in a Case of Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser Syndrome. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. A 2005, 15, 435–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Arshad, Z.; Mohan, S. Pregnancy in a Non-Communicating Uterine Horn. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2005, 84, 1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Samuels, T.-A.; Awonuga, A. Second-Trimester Rudimentary Uterine Horn Pregnancy: Rupture after Labor Induction with Misoprostol. Obstet. Gynecol. 2005, 106, 1160–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pal, K.; Majumdar, S.; Mukhopadhyay, S. Rupture of Rudimentary Uterine Horn Pregnancy at 37 Weeks Gestation with Fetal Survival. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2006, 274, 325–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Stitely, M.L.; Hopkins, K. Laparoscopic Removal of a Rudimentary Uterine Horn in a Previously Hysterectomized Patient. JSLS 2006, 10, 257–258. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  43. Dwyer, P.L.; Rosamilia, A. Congenital Urogenital Anomalies That Are Associated with the Persistence of Gartner’s Duct: A Review. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2006, 195, 354–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Sevtap, H.K.; Aral, A.M.; Sertac, B. An Early Diagnosis and Successful Local Medical Treatment of a Rudimentary Uterine Horn Pregnancy: A Case Report. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2007, 275, 297–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Taylor, E.L.; McComb, P.F. Removal of a Non-Communicating Horn May Not Affect Persistence or Recurrence of Endometriosis: A Case Report. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 2007, 29, 247–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Barnacle, S.J.; Robinson, R.D.; Malinowski, M.J. Laparoscopic Resection of a Noncommunicating, Rudimentary Uterine Horn Using the Harmonic Scalpel: A Report of 3 Cases. J. Reprod. Med. 2007, 52, 570–574. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  47. Kaufman, Y.; Lam, A. The Pelvic Uterus-like Mass—A Primary or Secondary Müllerian System Anomaly? J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2008, 15, 494–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Kadan, Y.; Romano, S. Rudimentary Horn Pregnancy Diagnosed by Ultrasound and Treated by Laparoscopy—A Case Report and Review of the Literature. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2008, 15, 527–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Khan, R.; Palamarchuk, T.; Khayat, F.; Dawlatly, B. A Case of Ante-Partum Uterine Rupture in a Nulliparous Patient with a Known Uterine Anomaly. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2008, 28, 644–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Nanda, S.; Dahiya, K.; Sharma, N.; Aggarwal, D.; Sighal, S.R.; Sangwan, N. Successful Twin Pregnancy in a Unicornuate Uterus with One Fetus in the Non-Communicating Rudimentary Horn. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2009, 280, 993–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Perez-Medina, T.; García-Andrade, C.; Bajo-Arenas, J. Advanced Pregnancy Loss in the Rudimentary Horn of an Undiagnosed Unicornuate Uterus. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2009, 35, 572–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Basak, S.; MacDougal, J.; Prentice, A. A Diagnostic Dilemma: Functioning Noncommunicating Uterine Horn and Elevated Levels of CA125. J. Pediatr. Adolesc. Gynecol. 2009, 22, e127–e129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. van Esch, E.M.G.; Lashley, E.E.L.O.; Berning, B.; de Kroon, C.D. The Value of Hysteroscopy in the Diagnostic Approach to a Rudimentary Horn Pregnancy. BMJ Case Rep. 2010, 2010, bcr0820103229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Cho, M.K.; Kim, C.H.; Oh, S.T. Endometriosis in a Patient with Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser Syndrome. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2009, 35, 994–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Bogdanova, N.; Siebers, U.; Kelsch, R.; Markoff, A.; Röpke, A.; Exeler, R.; Tsokas, J.; Wieacker, P. Blood Chimerism in a Girl with Down Syndrome and Possible Freemartin Effect Leading to Aplasia of the Müllerian Derivatives. Hum. Reprod. 2010, 25, 1339–1343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Lauritsen, M.P.; Larsen, E.; Johansen, M. Second Trimester Pregnancy in a Rudimentary Uterine Horn. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2010, 89, 1111–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Ercan, C.M.; Coksuer, H.; Pehlivan, H.; Ceyhan, S.T.; Alanbay, I.; Baser, I. Saline Infusion Sonography in the Accurate Diagnosis of a Rudimentary Horn Pregnancy. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2012, 32, 311–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Isango, Y.I.; Mukuku, O.; Ilunga, P.M.; Kakisingi, C.N.; Nsambi, J.; Kabamba, C.; Mutangala, G.; Mubinda, P.K.; Kimbala, J. Utérus bicorne bicervical perméable: Découverte fortuite lors d’une césarienne d’urgence chez une multipare lushoise. Pan Afr. Med. J. 2013, 15, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Torbe, E.; Hon, M.-S. Subsequent Pregnancy after a Ruptured Rudimentary Uterine Horn Pregnancy. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2013, 166, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Küçük, Z.; Ergün, Y.; Işik, H.; Kaya, F.; Akgün, Y.A.; Çaydere, M. A Rare Case of Uterine Rupture Due to a Placental Site Trophoblastic Tumour in the Rudimentary Horn. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2015, 35, 97–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Maddukuri, S.B.; Karegowda, L.H.; Prakashini, K.; Kantipudi, S. Robert’s Uterus: A Rare Congenital Müllerian Duct Anomaly Causing Haematometra. BMJ Case Rep. 2014, 2014, bcr2014204489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Aheri, H.; Saadi, H.; Benkirane, S.; Mimouni, A. La grossesse gémellaire sur un utérus pseudo unicorne: À propos d’un cas. Pan Afr. Med. J. 2015, 22, 330. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  63. Singh, P.; Gupta, R.; Das, B.; Bajaj, S.K.; Misra, R. Midtrimester Spontaneous Torsion of Unruptured Gravid Rudimentary Horn: Presurgical Diagnosis on Magnetic Resonance Imaging. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2015, 41, 1478–1482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Lovelace, D. Congenital Uterine Anomalies and Uterine Rupture. J. Midwifery Womens. Heal. 2016, 61, 501–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Al Qarni, A.A.; Al-Braikan, N.; Al-Hanbali, M.M.; Alharmaly, A.H. Rupture Rudimentary Horn Pregnancy at 31 Week. Saudi Med. J. 2017, 38, 201–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Biler, A.; Akdemir, A.; Peker, N.; Sendag, F. A Rare Uterine Malformation: Asymmetric Septate Uterus. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2018, 25, 28–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Nauman, Y.; Husain, S. Quadro-Cornuate Uterus. J. Coll. Physicians Surg. Pak. 2016, 26, S97–S99. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  68. Chamorro-Oscullo, J.D.R.; Sánchez-Cortázar, J.A.; Gómez-Pérez, M. de G. Unicornuate uterus with cavitary non-communicating rudimentary horn: Magnetic resonance characterization. Rev. Med. Inst. Mex. Seguro Soc. 2018, 56, 92–97. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  69. Della Corte, L.; Fabozzi, A.; Giampaolino, P.; Saccone, G.; Pizzuti, L.M.; Romeo, V.; Maurea, S.; Bifulco, G. A Case of 20-Week Abortion in a Rare Communicating Rudimentary Horn of a Misinterpreted Unicornuate Uterus, Incorrectly Diagnosed as Bicornuate: A Serious Hazard! Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2019, 235, 133–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Mabrouk, M.; Arena, A.; Zanello, M.; Raimondo, D.; Seracchioli, R. Unicornuate Uterus with Noncommunicating Functional Horn: Diagnostic Workup and Laparoscopic Horn Amputation. Fertil. Steril. 2020, 113, 885–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Martens, L.; Kluivers, K.B. Urethral coitus due to congenital abnormality of the genitalia. Ned. Tijdschr. Geneeskd. 2020, 164, D4189. [Google Scholar]
  72. Umobi, M.A.C.; Meltz, R.C.; Barmat, L.I. Accessory Uterine Appendage May Be a New Müllerian Malformation. Fertil Steril 2005, 84, 1017.e7–1017.e9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Evan, P.; Kramer, B. Uterine Diverticula and Accessory Ducts. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2008, 191, W71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Stec, A.A.; Wang, M.H. Isolated Distal Vaginal Agenesis Masquerading as Recurrent Urinary Infections in an Adolescent Female. J. Pediatr. 2011, 158, 684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Kisu, I.; Ono, A.; Iijma, T.; Katayama, M.; Iura, A.; Hirao, N. Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser Syndrome with a Uterine Cervix and Normal Vagina Associated with Gonadal Dysgenesis in a 46,XX Female. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2019, 45, 1386–1390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Yang, L.-D.; Zhang, C.; Yang, L.; Wu, Y.-Z.; Zhou, Q.-M. Congenital Atresia of Uterine Isthmus: Successful Diagnosis and End-to-End Anastomosis. J. Pediatr. Adolesc. Gynecol. 2015, 28, e113–e117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Wright, K.N.; Okpala, O.; Laufer, M.R. Obstructed Uteri with a Cervix and Vagina. Fertil. Steril. 2011, 95, 290.e17–290.e19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Wenz, C.R.; Sorensen, M.T.; Landeen, L. Complex Abdominal Pain in an Adolescent Female with a Mullerian Duct Anomaly: A Case Report. S. D. Med. 2020, 73, 442–447. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  79. Varras, M.; Akrivis, C.; Demou, A.; Kitsiou, E.; Antoniou, N. Double Vagina and Cervix Communicating Bilaterally with a Single Uterine Cavity: Report of a Case with an Unusual Congenital Uterine Malformation. J. Reprod. Med. 2007, 52, 238–240. [Google Scholar]
  80. Tanaka, Y.; Koyama, S.; Kobayashi, M.; Kubota, S.; Nakamura, R.; Isobe, M.; Shiki, Y. Complex Müllerian Malformation without Any Present Classification: Unilateral Ovarian and Tubal Absence with an Arcuate Uterus. Asian J. Endosc. Surg. 2013, 6, 55–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Shirota, K.; Fukuoka, M.; Tsujioka, H.; Inoue, Y.; Kawarabayashi, T. A Normal Uterus Communicating with a Double Cervix and the Vagina: A Müllerian Anomaly without Any Present Classification. Fertil. Steril. 2009, 91, 935.e1–935.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Samad, A.; Hussain, S.; Arshad, M.; Moazam, F. Diagnosis and Management of the Neonatal Cloaca. J. Pak. Med. Assoc. 2000, 50, 71–73. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  83. Sadik, S.; Taskin, O.; Sehirali, S.; Mendilcioglu, I.; Onoğlu, A.S.; Kursun, S.; Wheeler, J.M. Complex Müllerian Malformation: Report of a Case with a Hypoplastic Non-Cavitated Uterus and Two Rudimentary Horns. Hum. Reprod. 2002, 17, 1343–1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Pavone, M.E.; King, J.A.; Vlahos, N. Septate Uterus with Cervical Duplication and a Longitudinal Vaginal Septum: A Müllerian Anomaly without a Classification. Fertil. Steril. 2006, 85, 494.e9–494.e10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Medema, T.J.; Dekker, J.J.; Mijatovic, V.; van de Velde, W.J.; Schats, R.; Hompes, P.G. A Complex Malformation of the Uterus: Report of a Tricavitated Uterus. Fertil. Steril. 2008, 90, 2012.e7–2012.e11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Marques, K.; deVente, J.E.; Hall, T.; Gavrilova-Jordan, L.; Ansah, D. Management of a Late-Presenting Complex–an Unclassified Uterine Anomaly in the Presence of Large Leiomyomas. Clin. Exp. Obstet. Gynecol. 2013, 40, 289–290. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  87. Lopes, R.I.; Dénes, F.T.; Padovani, G.; Sircili, M.H.; Srougi, M. Monti’s Principle in the Treatment of Congenital Uterovesical Fistula. Urology 2014, 83, 1170–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Lima, M.; Cantone, N.; Destro, F.; Ruggeri, G. Combined Laparoscopic and Hysteroscopic Approach for the Treatment of a Hybrid Müllerian Duct Anomaly: A Case Report. J. Laparoendosc. Adv. Surg. Tech. A 2013, 23, 960–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Kumar, S.; Singh, S.K.; Mavuduru, R.; Naveen, A.; Agarwal, M.M.; Vanita, J.; Mandal, A.K. Bicornuate Uterine Horns with Complete Cervical-Vaginal Agenesis and Congenital Vesicouterine Fistula. Int. Urogynecol. J. Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008, 19, 739–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Kisu, I.; Tanaka, K.; Banno, K.; Okuda, S.; Aoki, D. Repair of Congenital “Disconnected Uterus”: A New Female Genital Anomaly? Hum. Reprod. 2015, 30, 46–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Hundley, A.F.; Fielding, J.R.; Hoyte, L. Double Cervix and Vagina with Septate Uterus: An Uncommon Müllerian Malformation. Obstet. Gynecol. 2001, 98, 982–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Gupta, N.; Mittal, S.; Dadhwal, V.; Misra, R. A Unique Congenital Mullerian Anomaly: Robert’s Uterus. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2007, 276, 641–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Guo, L.Q.; Cheng, A.-L.; Bhayana, D. Case of the Month #169: Septate Uterus with Cervical Duplication and Vaginal Septum. Can. Assoc. Radiol. J. 2011, 62, 226–228. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  94. Goluda, M.; St Gabryś, M.; Ujec, M.; Jedryka, M.; Goluda, C. Bicornuate Rudimentary Uterine Horns with Functioning Endometrium and Complete Cervical-Vaginal Agenesis Coexisting with Ovarian Endometriosis: A Case Report. Fertil. Steril. 2006, 86, 462.e9–462.e11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Gholoum, S.; Puligandla, P.S.; Hui, T.; Su, W.; Quiros, E.; Laberge, J.-M. Management and Outcome of Patients with Combined Vaginal Septum, Bifid Uterus, and Ipsilateral Renal Agenesis (Herlyn-Werner-Wunderlich Syndrome). J. Pediatr. Surg. 2006, 41, 987–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Garofalo, A.; Alemanno, M.G.; Sochirca, O.; Pilloni, E.; Garofalo, G.; Chiadò Fiorio Tin, M.; Viora, E. Accessory and Cavitated Uterine Mass in an Adolescent with Severe Dysmenorrhoea: From the Ultrasound Diagnosis to Surgical Treatment. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2017, 37, 259–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Frontino, G.; Bianchi, S.; Ciappina, N.; Restelli, E.; Borruto, F.; Fedele, L. The Unicornuate Uterus with an Occult Adenomyotic Rudimentary Horn. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2009, 16, 622–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Fedele, L.; Frontino, G.; Motta, F.; Restelli, E. A Uterovaginal Septum and Imperforate Hymen with a Double Pyocolpos. Hum. Reprod. 2012, 27, 1637–1639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Engmann, L.; Schmidt, D.; Nulsen, J.; Maier, D.; Benadiva, C. An Unusual Anatomic Variation of a Unicornuate Uterus with Normal External Uterine Morphology. Fertil. Steril. 2004, 82, 950–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. El Saman, A.M.; Nasr, A.; Tawfik, R.M.; Saadeldeen, H.S. Müllerian Duct Anomalies: Successful Endoscopic Management of a Hybrid Bicornuate/Septate Variety. J. Pediatr. Adolesc. Gynecol. 2011, 24, e89–e92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Dunn, R.; Hantes, J. Double Cervix and Vagina with a Normal Uterus and Blind Cervical Pouch: A Rare Müllerian Anomaly. Fertil. Steril. 2004, 82, 458–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Duffy, D.A.; Nulsen, J.; Maier, D.; Schmidt, D.; Benadiva, C. Septate Uterus with Cervical Duplication: A Full-Term Delivery after Resection of a Vaginal Septum. Fertil. Steril. 2004, 81, 1125–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Duhan, N.; Kadian, Y.S.; Malik, R. Normal Fundal Morphology Obscuring a Unicornuate and an Equally Developed Blind Uterine Horn—An Unclassified Mullerian Variant. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2016, 203, 336–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Di Spiezio Sardo, A.; Bettocchi, S.; Bramante, S.; Guida, M.; Bifulco, G.; Nappi, C. Office Vaginoscopic Treatment of an Isolated Longitudinal Vaginal Septum: A Case Report. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2007, 14, 512–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Celik, N.Y.; Mulayim, B. A Mullerian Anomaly “without Classification”: Septate Uterus with Double Cervix and Longitudinal Vaginal Septum. Taiwan. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2012, 51, 649–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Caliskan, E.; Cakiroglu, Y.; Turkoz, E.; Corakci, A. Leiomyoma on the Septum of a Septate Uterus with Double Cervix and Vaginal Septum: A Challenge to Manage. Fertil. Steril. 2008, 89, 456.e3–456.e7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Giraldo, J.L.; Habana, A.; Duleba, A.J.; Dokras, A. Septate Uterus Associated with Cervical Duplication and Vaginal Septum. J. Am. Assoc. Gynecol. Laparosc. 2000, 7, 277–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Shukunami, K.; Tsunezawa, W.; Kotsuji, F. Unicornuate Uterus with a Noncommunicating Cavitary, Laterally Dislocated Rudimentary Horn Presenting with Adenomyosis, Associated with Ipsilateral Renal Agenesis. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2000, 264, 88–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Durin, L.; Barjot, P.; Lucas, J.; Refahi, N.; von Theobald, P. Laparoscopic hemi-hysterectomy for pseudo unicornuate uterus: Apropos of 3 cases. J. Gynecol. Obstet. Biol. Reprod. 2000, 29, 793–796. [Google Scholar]
  110. Wai, C.Y.; Zekam, N.; Sanz, L.E. Septate Uterus with Double Cervix and Longitudinal Vaginal Septum. A Case Report. J. Reprod. Med. 2001, 46, 613–617. [Google Scholar]
  111. Burgis, J. Obstructive Müllerian Anomalies: Case Report, Diagnosis, and Management. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2001, 185, 338–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Kriplani, A.; Agarwal, N. Hysteroscopic and Laparoscopic Guided Miniaccess Hemihysterectomy for Non-Communicating Uterine Horn. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2001, 265, 162–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Mackey, R.; Geary, M.; Dornan, J.; McKenna, P. A Successful Pregnancy Following Transabdominal Cervical Cerclage for Cervical Hypoplasia. BJOG 2001, 108, 1111–1112. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  114. Bugmann, P.; Amaudruz, M.; Hanquinet, S.; la Scala, G.; Birraux, J.; le Coultre, C. Uterocervicoplasty with a Bladder Mucosa Layer for the Treatment of Complete Cervical Agenesis. Fertil. Steril. 2002, 77, 831–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Gabriel, B.; Fischer, D.-C.; Sergius, G. Unruptured Pregnancy in a Non-Communicating Heterotopic Right Fallopian Tube Associated with Left Unicornuate Uterus: Evidence for Transperitoneal Sperm and Oocyte Migration. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2002, 81, 91–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Nishi, H.; Funayama, H.; Fukumine, N.; Yagishita, M.; Nohira, T.; Suzuki, Y.; Isaka, K.; Takayama, M. Rupture of Pregnant Noncommunicating Rudimentary Uterine Horn with Fetal Salvage: A Case Report. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2003, 268, 224–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Arroyo, A.; Yeh, J. Twin Gestation after Ovulation Induction in a Woman with a Non-Communicating Rudimentary Horn Attached to a Unicornuate Uterus. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2005, 89, 140–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Tanaka, Y.; Asada, H.; Uchida, H.; Maruyama, T.; Kuji, N.; Sueoka, K.; Yoshimura, Y. Case of Iatrogenic Dysmenorrhea in Non-Communicating Rudimentary Uterine Horn and Its Laparoscopic Resection. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2005, 31, 242–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Gurbuz, A.; Karateke, A.; Haliloglu, B. Abdominal Surgical Approach to a Case of Complete Cervical and Partial Vaginal Agenesis. Fertil. Steril. 2005, 84, 217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Theodoridis, T.D.; Saravelos, H.; Chatzigeorgiou, K.N.; Zepiridis, L.; Grimbizis, G.F.; Vavilis, D.; Loufopoulos, A.; Bontis, J.N. Laparoscopic Management of Unicornuate Uterus with Non-Communicating Rudimentary Horn (Three Cases). Reprod. Biomed. Online 2006, 12, 128–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Jakiel, G.; Robak-Cholubek, D. Successful Outcome of Twin Gestation after Endoscopic Metroplasty of Complete Septate Uterus. Gynecol. Obstet. Investig. 2006, 62, 17–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Demir, B.; Guven, S.; Guvendag Guven, E.S.; Gunalp, G.S. An Incidental Finding of Unicornuate Uterus with Unilateral Ovarian Agenesis during Cesarean Delivery. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2007, 276, 91–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Kresowik, J.; Ryan, G.L.; Austin, J.C.; van Voorhis, B.J. Ultrasound-Assisted Repair of a Unique Case of Distal Vaginal Agenesis. Fertil. Steril. 2007, 87, 976.e9–976.e12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Berhan, Y.; Yusuf, L. Viable Pregnancies in Women with Different Mullerian Duct Anomalies. Ethiop. Med. J. 2006, 44, 291–299. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  125. Park, J.K.; Dominguez, C.E. Combined Medical and Surgical Management of Rudimentary Uterine Horn Pregnancy. JSLS 2007, 11, 119–122. [Google Scholar]
  126. Fuchs, F.; Guillot, E.; Cordier, A.-G.; Chis, C.; Raynal, P.; Panel, P. Rupture d’une corne utérine rudimentaire non communicante gravide sur un utérus pseudo-unicorne à 23 semaines d’aménorrhée. Gynecol. Obstet. Fertil. 2008, 36, 400–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Matignas, A.L.A.; Delos Reyes, R.H. Rectovestibular Fistula as Neovagina in Congenital Cervico-Vaginal Agenesis Associated with Imperforate Anus. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2008, 34, 428–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Jihong, L.; Siow, A.; Chern, B. Laparoscopic Excision of Rudimentary Horn Pregnancy in a Patient with Previous Caesarean Section. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2009, 279, 403–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Rana, R.; Pasrija, S.; Puri, M. Herlyn-Werner-Wunderlich Syndrome with Pregnancy: A Rare Presentation. Congenit. Anom. 2008, 48, 142–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Vaid, N.B.; Radhika, A.G.; Radhakrishnan, G. Longitudinal Vaginal Septum ’Obstructive Variety’—A Challenge for Gynaecologist. J. Indian Med. Assoc. 2008, 106, 250–255. [Google Scholar]
  131. Lamarca, M.; Navarro, R.; Ballesteros, M.E.; García-Aguirre, S.; Conte, M.P.; Duque, J.A. Leiomyomas in Both Uterine Remnants in a Woman with the Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser Syndrome. Fertil. Steril. 2009, 91, 931.e13–931.e15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. García González, P.; Meana Morís, A.R.; Gracia Chapullé, A.; Matesanz Pérez, J.L. Lesión quística congénita en la pelvis: Un caso de útero didelfo con doble vagina, hematocolpos y agenesia renal ipsilateral: Papel de la resonancia magnética. Radiologia 2009, 51, 194–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Nunes, N.; Karandikar, S.; Cooper, S.; Jaganathan, R.; Irani, S. VATER/VACTERL Syndrome (Vertebra/Anus/Cardiac/Trachea/Esophogus/Radius/Renal/Limb Anomalies) with a Noncommunicating Functioning Uterine Horn and a Unicornuate Uterus: A Case Report. Fertil. Steril. 2009, 91, 1957.e11–1957.e12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Al-Ghafri, W.; Tulandi, T. Image of the Month. Uterine Anomaly: A Classification Challenge. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 2009, 31, 105–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Hafeez, M.; Haleem, S.; Anwar, S.; Talib, W.; Yasmeen, F.; Shuakat, R.; Hamid, S. Functioning Uterus with Absent Cervix, Short Vagina and Transverse Septum. J. Coll. Physicians Surg. Pak. 2009, 19, 386–388. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  136. DaCosta, V.; Christie, L.; Wynter, S.; Harriott, J.; Frederick, J. Uterus Bicornis Bicollis, Imperforate Hemivagina and Ipsilateral Renal Agenesis: Case Report and Literature Review. West Indian Med. J. 2009, 58, 379–382. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  137. Dilbaz, S.; Dede, F.S.; Kiseli, M.; Dilbaz, B. Cervical Fragmentation: A Successful End-to-End Anastomosis. Fertil. Steril. 2010, 94, 2769.e9–2769.e11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Maciołek-Blewniewska, G.; Malinowski, A. Uterine cervix agenesis–uterovaginal anastomosis. Ginekol. Pol. 2010, 81, 389–392. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  139. Talebian Yazdi, A.; de Smet, K.; Ernst, C.; Desprechins, B.; de Mey, J. Uterus Didelphys with Obstructed Hemivagina and Renal Agenesis: MRI Findings. JBR-BTR 2011, 94, 16–18. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  140. Kawthalkar, A.S.; Gawande, M.S.; Jain, S.H.; Joshi, S.A.; Ghike, S.D.; Bhalerao, A. v Rare Case of Live Birth in a Ruptured Rudimentary Horn Pregnancy. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2011, 37, 1169–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Khong, T.L.; Siddiqui, J.; Mallinson, P.; Horton, D.; Gandhi, J.; Daniel, R. Herlyn-Werner-Wunderlich Syndrome: Uterus Didelphys, Obstructed Hemivagina, and Ipsilateral Renal Agenesis-Role of Sonographically Guided Minimally Invasive Vaginal Surgery. Eur. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2012, 22, 171–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. del Vescovo, R.; Battisti, S.; di Paola, V.; Piccolo, C.L.; Cazzato, R.L.; Sansoni, I.; Grasso, R.F.; Zobel, B.B. Herlyn-Werner-Wunderlich Syndrome: MRI Findings, Radiological Guide (Two Cases and Literature Review), and Differential Diagnosis. BMC Med. Imaging 2012, 12, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Socea, B.; Constantin, V.; Carâp, A.; Moculescu, C.; Pãdeanu, N.; Popa, F. Rare Urogenital Malformation Associated with Complex Vascular Malformation—Case Report. Chirurgia 2012, 107, 659–663. [Google Scholar]
  144. Alaoui, F.Z.F.; Bouguern, H.; Jayi, S.; Squalli, N.; Melhouf, M.A. Management of a uterus didelphys associated with a blind hemivagina. Pan Afr. Med. J. 2012, 13, 56. [Google Scholar]
  145. Wozniakowska, E.; Torres, A.; Milart, P.; Wozniak, S.; Czuczwar, P.; Szkodziak, P.; Paszkowski, T. Delayed Diagnosis of Herlyn-Werner-Wunderlich Syndrome Due to Microperforation and Pyocolpos in Obstructed Vaginal Canal. J. Pediatr. Adolesc. Gynecol. 2014, 27, e79–e81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Blitz, M.J.; Appelbaum, H. Torsion of Fallopian Tube Remnant Associated with Noncommunicating Rudimentary Horn in Adolescent Girl with Unicornuate Uterus. J. Pediatr. Adolesc. Gynecol. 2014, 27, e97–e99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Shah, T.N.; Venkatesh, S.; Saxena, R.K.; Pawar, S. Uterovaginal Anastomosis for Complete Cervical Agenesis and Partial Vaginal Agenesis: A Case Report. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2014, 174, 154–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Piña-García, A.; Afrashtehfar, C. Uterus Didelphys, obstructed hemivagina and ipsilateral renal agenesis as a presentation of a case of the Herlyn-Wemer-Wünderlich syndrome. Literature review. Ginecol. Obstet. Mex. 2013, 81, 616–620. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  149. Pereira, N.; Anderson, S.H.; Verrecchio, E.S.; Brown, M.A.; Glassner, M.J. Hemivaginal Septum Resection in a Patient with a Rare Variant of Herlyn-Werner-Wunderlich Syndrome. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2014, 21, 1113–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  150. Kanno, Y.; Suzuki, T.; Nakamura, E.; Goya, K.-I.; Nishijima, Y.; Shinoda, M.; Hayashi, M.; Izumi, S.-I. Successful Term Delivery after Laparoscopic Resection of a Non-Communicating Rudimentary Horn in a Patient with a Unicornuate Uterus: A Case Report. Tokai J. Exp. Clin. Med. 2014, 39, 59–63. [Google Scholar]
  151. Cortés-Contreras, D.K.; Juárez-Cruz, P.M.; Vázquez-Flores, J.; Vázquez-Flores, A.D. Obstructed hemivagina and ipsilateral renal anomaly: Unusual cause of piocolpos. Report a case and review of literature. Ginecol. Obstet. Mex. 2014, 82, 711–715. [Google Scholar]
  152. Chowdhury, S.; Ara, R.; Begum, S.A.; Chowdhury, S.B.; Hussain, M.A.; Mirza, T.T. Uterus Didelphys with Unilateral Obstructed Hemivagina and Haematocolpos with Ipsilateral Renal Agenesis—A Case Report. Mymensingh Med. J. 2015, 24, 202–206. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  153. Tajiri, R.; Ueda, T.; Aoyama, Y.; Sakuragi, T.; Tohyama, A.; Okabe, K.; Nakagawa, H.; Kinjo, Y.; Hachisuga, T. Pregnancy after Hysteroscopic Metroplasty under Laparoscopy in a Woman with Complete Septate Uterus: A Case Report. J. UOEH 2015, 37, 17–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Piccinini, P.S.; Doski, J. Herlyn-Werner-Wunderlich Syndrome: A Case Report. Rev. Bras. Ginecol. Obstet. 2015, 37, 192–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Billich, C.; Schwab, B. Klinische Manifestation eines Uterus unicornis mit rudimentärem nicht kommunizierendem Horn bei einem 13-jährigen Mädchen. Rofo 2015, 187, 1039–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  156. Bhagavath, B.; Behrman, E.; Salari, B.W.; Vitek, W.; Barhan, S.; Yaklic, J.L.; Lindheim, S.R. Metroplasty to Treat Chronic Pelvic Pain Resulting from Outflow Tract Müllerian Anomalies. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2015, 213, 871.e1–871.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Sharma, R.; Dey, A.K.; Mittal, K.; Kumar, P.; Thakkar, H. Use of Imaging in Diagnosis of Herlyn-Werner-Wunderlich Syndrome, a Case Report. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2016, 36, 873–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Yildirim, D.; Turkgeldi, L.S.; Tekiner, N.; Seckin, K.D.; Yucel, B. A Case of Rudimentary Horn Pregnancy Diagnosed after Failed Attempts at Pregnancy Termination. Niger. J. Clin. Pract. 2017, 20, 111–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  159. Reis, M.I.; Vicente, A.P.; Cominho, J.; Gomes, A.S.; Martins, L.; Nunes, F. Pyometra and Pregnancy with Herlyn-Werner-Wunderlich Syndrome. Rev. Bras. Ginecol. Obstet. 2016, 38, 623–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Albulescu, D.M.; Ceauşescu, A.E.; Sas, L.M.; Comănescu, M.C.; Constantin, C.; Tudorache, Ş. The Herlyn-Werner-Wunderlich Triad (OHVIRA Syndrome) with Good Pregnancy Outcome—Two Cases and Literature Review. Rom. J. Morphol. Embryol. 2018, 59, 1253–1262. [Google Scholar]
  161. Lusty, C.; Vilos, A.; Vilos, G. Mullerian Anomaly with Pelvic Pain. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 2018, 40, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Zhang, X.; Ding, Y.; Hua, K.; Liu, S.; Jia, N. Combined Laparoscopic and Vaginal Cervicovaginal Reconstruction Using Acellular Porcine Small Intestinal Submucosa Graft in a Patient with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser Syndrome (U5aC4V4). J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2019, 26, 396–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  163. Oppelt, P.; Renner, S.P.; Brucker, S.; Strissel, P.L.; Strick, R.; Oppelt, P.G.; Doerr, H.G.; Schott, G.E.; Hucke, J.; Wallwiener, D.; et al. The VCUAM (Vagina Cervix Uterus Adnex-Associated Malformation) Classification: A New Classification for Genital Malformations. Fertil. Steril. 2005, 84, 1493–1497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  164. Di Spiezio Sardo, A.; Campo, R.; Gordts, S.; Spinelli, M.; Cosimato, C.; Tanos, V.; Brucker, S.; Li, T.C.; Gergolet, M.; De Angelis, C.; et al. The Comprehensiveness of the ESHRE/ESGE Classification of Female Genital Tract Congenital Anomalies: A Systematic Review of Cases Not Classified by the AFS System. Hum. Reprod. 2015, 30, 1046–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  165. Acién, P.; del Campo, F.; Mayol, M.-J.; Acién, M. The Female Gubernaculum: Role in the Embryology and Development of the Genital Tract and in the Possible Genesis of Malformations. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2011, 159, 426–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Acién, P.; Acién, M.; Mazaira, N.; Quesada-Rico, J.A. Reproductive Outcome in Uterine Malformations with or without an Associated Unilateral Renal Agenesis. J. Reprod. Med. 2014, 59, 69–75. [Google Scholar]
  167. Acién, P.; Acién, M. The Presentation and Management of Complex Female Genital Malformations. Hum. Reprod. Update 2016, 22, 48–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Acién, P.; Acién, M. Diagnostic Imaging and Cataloguing of Female Genital Malformations. Insights Imaging 2016, 7, 713–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Acién, P.; Susarte, F.; Romero, J.; Galán, J.; Mayol, M.J.; Quereda, F.J.; Sánchez-Ferrer, M. Complex Genital Malformation: Ectopic Ureter Ending in a Supposed Mesonephric Duct in a Woman with Renal Agenesis and Ipsilateral Blind Hemivagina. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2004, 117, 105–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Acién, P.; Acién, M.; Romero-Maroto, J. Blind Hemibladder, Ectopic Ureterocele, or Gartner’s Duct Cyst in a Woman with Müllerian Malformation and Supposed Unilateral Renal Agenesis: A Case Report. Int. Urogynecol. J. 2010, 21, 365–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Acién, P.; Sánchez-Ferrer, M.; Mayol-Belda, M.J. Unilateral Cervico-Vaginal Atresia with Ipsilateral Renal Agenesis. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2004, 117, 249–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Briosa, F.; Valsassina, R.; Mira, C.; Zagalo, A. Zinner and Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser Syndromes: When Unilateral Renal Agenesis Meets Genital Anomalies. BMJ Case Rep. 2019, 12, e229034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. Capito, C.; Sarnacki, S. Menstrual Retention in a Robert’s Uterus. J. Pediatr. Adolesc. Gynecol. 2009, 22, e104–e106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jcm 13 02988 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of the selection of articles and cases of malformation(s).
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram of the selection of articles and cases of malformation(s).
Jcm 13 02988 g001
Table 1. Classification of cases as reported in the articles.
Table 1. Classification of cases as reported in the articles.
Total Number of Cases824 (100%)
Classified using159 (19.3%)AFS classification101 (63.5%)
Embryological–clinical classification20 (12.6%)
ESHRE/ESGE classification16 (10.1%)
More than one classification system22 (13.8%)
Unclassifiable with52 (6.3%)AFS classification32 (61.5%)
ESHRE/ESGE classification1 (1.9%)
Any classification system5 (9.6%)
An unknown classification system4 (7.7%)
Not classified613 (74.4%)
AFS: American Fertility Society. ESHRE/ESGE: European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology/European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy.
Table 2. Classification of the cases using the embryological–clinical classification [6].
Table 2. Classification of the cases using the embryological–clinical classification [6].
Total Number of Cases824 (100%)
Classified741 (89.9%)
Inconclusive63 (7.6%)Lack of anatomical data in the text to distinguish between two types of malformation
Not classified20 (2.4%)4—Genital malformation not demonstrated
16—Insufficient description of the malformation in the text
Table 3. Classification of the cases reported as unclassified by their authors using the embryological–clinical classification [6].
Table 3. Classification of the cases reported as unclassified by their authors using the embryological–clinical classification [6].
ReferencePatientsUterusCervixVaginaRenal AgenesisAuthor’s DefinitionEmbryological–Clinical Classification [6]Comments
Our Description
Caliskan et al. (2008) [106]1SeptateSeptateLongitudinal vaginal septumNoThe classification of this disorder is a subject of controversy.3.A.5-1Septate uterus.
Celik et al. (2012) [105]1SeptateDoubleLongitudinal vaginal septumNot investigatedA Müllerian anomaly without classification.3.A.5-1Septate uterus.
Di Spiezio et al. (2007) [104]1NormalNormalPartial longitudinal vaginal septum Not investigatedLongitudinal vaginal septum.3.B.2Müllerian tubercle anomaly, resorption defect.
Diehl et al. (2009) [10]1Right unicornuate uterus with rudimentary, cavitated left horn that is non-communicating.SingleSingleLeftUnusual Müllerian Anomaly.2.5Unicornuate uterus with contralateral unattached but cavitated rudimentary horn and ipsilateral renal agenesis.
Ruptured left hematosalpinx.
Duhan et al. (2016) [103]1Left unicornuate uterus with cavitated right horn that is non-communicating.Single (communicated with left cavity)NormalNot investigatedUnclassified Müllerian variant.3.A.4Bicornis-unicollis uterus with a non-communicating cavitated uterine horn.
Patient with 4 laparotomies, 2 cesarean sections.
It is possible that it is a septate/subseptate uterus (3.A.5) and the septum and uterine wall were sutured during second cesarean section, closing the right hemicavity.
Duffy et al. (2004) [102]1SeptateDoubleLongitudinal vaginal septumNot investigatedRare Müllerian duct
malformation.		3.A.5-1Septate uterus.
Dunn et al. (2004) [101]1NormalSeptate
(only left cervix communicates with the uterine cavity)		Longitudinal vaginal septumNoRare Müllerian anomaly.3.B.2Müllerian tubercle anomaly, cervico-vaginal fusion and resorption defects.
El Saman et al. (2011) [100]1Bicornuate, with a normal left hemi-cavity, and a non-communicating, cavitated right horn. Single (communicated with left cavity)NormalNoUnclassified new anomaly.3.A.4-2Bicornis-unicollis uterus with a non-communicating cavitated uterine horn.
Engmann et al. (2004) [99]1UnicornuateSingleNormalNot investigatedIt has not been previously included in the classification of AFS. They propose inclusion of this anomaly as a subcategory under Type II.3.A.2Unicornuate uterus with atretic non-cavitated rudimentary horn, or segmentary atresia.
Fedele et al. (2012) [98]1SeptateSeptateSeptate + imperforated hymenNoThe combination of a uterovaginal septum with an imperforated
hymen does not seem to fit into the existing classification systems.		6
(3.A.5-1 + 5)		Malformative combination:
Septate uterus + anomalies of the urogenital sinus.
Frontino et al. (2009) [97]1Unicornuate
uterus with an occult cavitated rudimentary
horn.		NormalNormalNoUnusual presentations do not fit into this system (AFS).3.A.2-1Unicornuate uterus with cavitated non-communicated right uterine horn.
1Left
unicornuate uterus and right uterine nodule.		NormalNormalNot investigatedUnusual presentations do not fit into this system (AFS).3.A.2-1Unicornuate uterus with cavitated non-communicated right uterine horn.
Garofalo et al. (2017) [96]1Normal uterus with accessory and cavitated uterine mass.NormalNormalNot investigatedACUM. Unusual presentations still do not fit into this system (AFS, ESHRE).4Accessory and cavitated uterine masses with normal uterus.
Gholoum et al. (2006) [95]10DidelphysDouble Blind hemivagina (7 right, 3 left)7 right, 3 leftHWW syndrome.2.1Uterine duplicity with hematocolpos in blind hemivagina and ipsilateral renal agenesis.
1DidelphysDoubleBlind hemivagina + partially obstructing contralateral vaginal septumRightHWW syndrome + other pathologies.6
(2.1 + 3.B.2)		Malformative combinations:
Uterine duplicity with a blind hemivagina and ipsilateral renal agenesis + contralateral incomplete transverse vaginal septum.
1Didelphys (without communicating uteri)SingleSingleRightHWW syndrome + cervical atresia.2.5Uterine duplicity with complete unilateral cervico-vaginal atresia, hematometra and ipsilateral renal agenesis.
Goluda et al. (2006) [94]1Bicornuate rudimentary uterine horns with functioning endometrium.AbsentAbsentNoThis case cannot be assigned to any group of the AFS classification.3.CRokitansky syndrome with rudimentary uterine horns and endometriosis.
Hereditary renal cystic syndrome.
Guo et al. (2011) [93]1SeptateDoubleLongitudinal vaginal septumNot investigatedThis unique type of müllerian anomaly does not fall into the AFS classification.3.A.5-1Septate uterus.
Gupta et al. (2007) [92]1Asymmetric septate uterus with non-communicating
right hemicavity.		SingleNormalNoA unique congenital Müllerian anomaly: Robert’s uterus.3.A.2-1Unicornuate uterus with atretic cavitated rudimentary horn.
Hundley et al. (2001) [91]1BicornuateDoubleDouble vagina with partial longitudinal vaginal septumNoThis unusual müllerian anomaly does not fit in the commonly used classification system suggested by Buttram and Gibbons.3.A.4-1Bicornis-bicollis uterus with vaginal longitudinal septum.
Iglesias-Lopes et al. (2014) [87]1BicornuateSingleUterovesical fistula + anomaly of the urogenital sinus (repaired at childhood)RightComplex Müllerian abnormality that cannot be assigned to any group of this classification (AFS).6
(2.4 + 5)		Malformative combination:
Uterine duplicity with complete unilateral cervico-vaginal atresia with communicating uteri and ipsilateral renal agenesis + anomaly of the urogenital sinus (imperforated anus with anorectoplasty in childhood).
Kisu et al. (2014) [90]1Normal uterine body, separated from cervix.NormalNormalNoThis case of “disconnected uterus” did not correspond to the conventional
classification (ESHRE).		3.B.2Anomalies of the connection of the Müllerian ducts with the Müllerian tubercle. Isthmic segmentary atresia.
Kumar et al. (2008) [89]1Double uterus with cavitated horns.AbsentAgenesis + vesicouterine fistula.NoThis case report cannot be assigned to any group of the AFS classification.6
(3.C + 5)		Malformative combination:
Rokitansky syndrome with cavitated horns + left horn with vesical pseudofistula.
Lima et al. (2013) [88]1BicornuateSingle SingleLeftHybrid Müllerian Duct Anomaly.
They propose that the AFS classification of these anomalies should be revised.		2.5Uterine duplicity with complete unilateral cervico-vaginal atresia without communicating uteri (left hematometra and hematosalpinx) and ipsilateral renal agenesis.
Marques et al. (2013) [86]1Rudimentary didelphic uterus with fibroids.AbsentNormalNoUnclassified
uterine anomaly.		3.A.1Agenesis of both Müllerian ducts.
Seven cm vagina. Normal right kidney. Duplex left kidney.
Medema et al. (2008) [85]1TricavitatedSingleNormalNot investigatedThis tricavitated anomaly of the uterus cannot be clearly explained, according to the classification for uterine malformations by the AFS.3.A.7Tricavitated uterus.
Pavone et al. (2006) [84]1SeptateDoubleLongitudinal vaginal septumNoA Müllerian anomaly
without a classification		3.A.5-1Septate uterus.
Sadik et al. (2002) [83]1Tricavitated and rudimentary uterusHypoplasticNormalNoUnknown anomaly of the uterus3.A.7Tricavitated uterus. Possible DES syndrome.
Samad et al. (2000) [82]1BicornuateUndeterminedCommon chamber. CloacaNot investigatedCloacal anomalies. Currently there is no universally accepted classification system.6
(3.A.4 + 5)		Malformative combination:
Anomalies of the urogenital sinus + bicornuate uterus.
1NormalUndeterminedCommon chamber. CloacaNot investigatedCloacal anomalies. Currently there is no universally accepted classification system.5Anomaly of the urogenital sinus.
Shirota et al. (2009) [81]1NormalDoubleSeptateNo A Müllerian anomaly without any present classification.3.B.2Müllerian tubercle anomaly, cervico-vaginal fusion and resorption defects.
Tanaka et al. (2013) [80]1ArcuateNormalNormalNoComplex Müllerian malformation without any present classification.3.A.6Arcuate uterus.
Right dermoid cyst.
Absence of the left ovary and
fallopian tube. It may be due to ischemia and atrophy from previous adnexal torsion.
Varras et al. (2007) [79]1NormalDoubleSeptateNoUnusual Müllerian anomaly.3.B.2Müllerian tubercle anomaly, cervico-vaginal fusion and resorption defects.
Fibroid uterus.
Wenz et al. (2020) [78]1Didelphys + cloacal
exstrophy		DoubleLeft blind hemivaginaHorseshoe kidneyHWW syndrome.
Multiple congenital anomalies.		6
(2.1 + 5)		Malformative combination:
Uterine duplicity with a blind hemivagina and renal anomaly + anomaly of the urogenital sinus.
Patient with multiple surgeries in childhood, it is difficult to know which anomalies are congenital and which are secondary.
Wright et al. (2011) [77]1Cavitated and rudimentary horns, not connected to the cervixNormalNormalPancake pelvic kidneyUnusual reproductive tract anomaly which is challenging to explain from an embryologic standpoint.3.A.1Hypoplasia of both Müllerian ducts.
It seems to have an associated mesonephric anomaly due to pancake pelvic kidney.
Yang et al. (2015) [76]1Normal uterine body, isthmic agenesisNormalNormalNoThis case is exceedingly rare and hard to classify according to the
AFS classification.		3.B.2Anomalies of the connection of the Müllerian ducts with the Müllerian tubercle. Isthmic segmentary atresia.
AFS: American Fertility Society. ACUM: Accessory and cavitated uterine masses. ESHRE: European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. HWW: Herlyn-Werner-Wünderlich Syndrome.
Table 4. Dispersion matrix.
Table 4. Dispersion matrix.
AFS Classification
IIaIa + IbIbIeIIIIbIIIIV
Embryological–Clinical
Classification		1.2 1
2.1 221
2.1 + 5 1
2.3 5
2.5 231
2.5 + 5 1
3.A.2 417
3.A.3 1
3.A.4 5 1
3.B.1 19 1
3.B.1 + 3.A.4 1
3.B.211 4 2
AFS: American Fertility Society.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Navarro, V.; Acién, M.; Acién, P. Applicability and Suitability of the Embryological–Clinical Classification of Female Genital Malformations: A Systematic Review. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 2988. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13102988

AMA Style

Navarro V, Acién M, Acién P. Applicability and Suitability of the Embryological–Clinical Classification of Female Genital Malformations: A Systematic Review. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024; 13(10):2988. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13102988

Chicago/Turabian Style

Navarro, Victoria, Maribel Acién, and Pedro Acién. 2024. "Applicability and Suitability of the Embryological–Clinical Classification of Female Genital Malformations: A Systematic Review" Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 10: 2988. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13102988

APA Style

Navarro, V., Acién, M., & Acién, P. (2024). Applicability and Suitability of the Embryological–Clinical Classification of Female Genital Malformations: A Systematic Review. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 13(10), 2988. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13102988

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop