3.8 Article

Reproductive outcomes of office hysteroscopic metroplasty in women with unexplained infertility with dysmorphic uterus

Journal

TURKISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
Volume 15, Issue 3, Pages 135-140

Publisher

GALENOS PUBL HOUSE
DOI: 10.4274/tjod.30111

Keywords

Dysmorphic uterus; T-shaped uterus; office hysteroscopy; obstetric outcome; unexplained infertility

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The correlation between dysmorphic uterus and infertility still remains enigmatic. We evaluated the reproductive outcomes of metroplasty via office hysteroscopy in unexplained infertile women with dysmorphic uteri. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, metroplasty via office hysteroscopy using a bipolar system was performed to 272 women with unexplained infertility with dysmorphic uteri from January 2013 to January 2016. Of all the patients, 162 had primary infertility, and 110 had secondary infertility. Results: In the primary infertility group, the clinical pregnancy rate was 45.68% (74/162) and the live birth rate was 38.9% (63/162), and in the secondary infertility group, the clinical pregnancy rate was 55.45% (61/110) and the live birth rate was 49% (54/110) after metroplasty. In the secondary infertility group, the miscarriage rate and especially the ectopic pregnancy rate declined dramatically [from 84.5% (93/110) to 9.8% (6/61) and from 15.5% (17/110) to 1.6% (1/61), respectively] (p<0.01). Conclusion: Reproductive outcome can be impaired by Mullerian anomalies, hence, infertile women with dysmorphic uteri should undergo hysteroscopy to improve reproductive outcomes. Our study demonstrated that office hysteroscopic metroplasty of a dysmorphic uterus might improve fertility, particularly in patients with unexplained infertility with dysmorphic uteri, which was an ignored factor previously. Office hysteroscopy is an alternative option in terms of non-invasive procedure.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available