The value of three-dimensional ultrasound in identifying Mullerian anomalies at risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes

References

• Cahen-Peretz A, Sheiner E, Friger M, et al. The association between Müllerian anomalies and perinatal outcome. J Matern Neonatal Med. 2019;32(1):51–57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimbizis GF, Camus M, Tarlatzis BC, et al. Clinical implications of uterine malformations and hysteroscopic treatment results. Hum Reprod Update. 2001;7(2):161–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomaževič T, Ban-Frangež H, Ribič-Pucelj M, et al. Small uterine septum is an important risk variable for preterm birth. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007;135(2):154–157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simón C, Martinez L, Pardo F, et al. Müllerian defects in women with normal reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril. 1991;56(6):1192–1193.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Makino T, Umeuchi M, Nakada KI, et al. Incidence of congenital uterine anomalies in repeated reproductive wastage and prognosis for pregnancy after metroplasty. Int J Fertil. 1992;37(3):167–170.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Homer HA, Li T-C, Cooke ID. The septate uterus: a review of management and reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(1):1–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guimarães Filho HA, Mattar R, Pires CR, et al. Comparison of hysterosalpingography, hysterosonography and hysteroscopy in evaluation of the uterine cavity in patients with recurrent pregnancy losses. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2006;274(5):284–288.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Zamora J, et al. The prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies in unselected and high-risk populations: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(6):761–771.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elsokkary M, Elshourbagy M, Labib K, et al. Assessment of hysteroscopic role in management of women with recurrent pregnancy loss. J Matern Neonatal Med. 2018;31(11):1494–1504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox NS, Roman AS, Saltzman DH, et al. Twin pregnancy in patients with a uterine anomaly. J Matern Neonatal Med. 2014;27(4):360–364.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marten K, Vosshenrich R, Funke M, et al. MRI in the evaluation of Müllerian duct anomalies. Clin Imaging. 2003;27(5):346–350.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behr SC, Courtier JL, Qayyum A. Imaging of Müllerian duct anomalies. Radiographics. 2012;32(6):E233–E250.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robbins JB, Broadwell C, Chow LC, et al. Müllerian duct anomalies: embryological development, classification, and MRI assessment. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;41(1):1–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marcal L, Nothaft MA, Coelho F, et al. Mullerian duct anomalies: MR imaging. Abdom Imaging. 2011;36(6):756–764.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bermejo C, Martínez Ten P, Cantarero R, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies and concordance with magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35(5):593–601.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deutch TD, Abuhamad AZ. The role of 3-dimensional ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of Müllerian duct anomalies: a review of the literature. J Ultrasound Med. 2008;27(3):413–423.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Detti L. Ultrasound assessment of uterine cavity remodeling after surgical correction of subseptations. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(3):262.e1-262–e6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ergenoglu AM, Sahin Ç, Şimşek D, et al. Comparison of three-dimensional ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging diagnosis in surgically proven Müllerian duct anomaly cases. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;197:22–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Troiano RN, McCarthy SM. Mullerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues. Radiology. 2004;233(1):19–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benacerraf BR, Abuhamad AZ, Bromley B, et al. Consider ultrasound first for imaging the female pelvis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(4):450–455.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pfeifer S, Butts S, Dumesic D, et al. Uterine septum: a guideline. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(3):530–540.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimbizis GF, Gordts S, Di Spiezio Sardo A, et al. The ESHRE-ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Gynecol Surg. 2013;10(3):199–212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimbizis GF, Di Spiezio Sardo A, Saravelos SH, et al. The Thessaloniki ESHRE/ESGE consensus on diagnosis of female genital anomalies. Gynecol Surg. 2016;13:1–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ludwin A, Ludwin I, Kudla M, et al. Reliability of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology/European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy and American Society for Reproductive Medicine classification systems for congenital uterine anomalies detected using three-dimensional ultrasonography. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(3):688–697.e8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ludwin A, Ludwin I. Comparison of the ESHRE-ESGE and ASRM classifications of Mullerian duct anomalies in everyday practice. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(3):569–580.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg. 2014;12(12):1495–1499.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cicchetti DV. Sample size requirements for increasing the precision of reliability estimates: problems and proposed solutions. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1999;21:567–570.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cicchetti DV. Methodological commentary the precision of reliability and validity estimates re-visited: distinguishing between clinical and statistical significance of sample size requirements. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2001;23(5):695–700.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martins WP, Raine-Fenning NJ, Leite SP, et al. A standardized measurement technique may improve the reliability of measurements of endometrial thickness and volume. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38(1):107–115.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ludwin A, Martins WP, Nastri CO, et al. Congenital Uterine Malformation by Experts (CUME): better criteria for distinguishing between normal/arcuate and septate uterus?. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51(1):101–109.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar