4.7 Article

Effect of prior birth and miscarriage frequency on the prevalence of acquired and congenital uterine anomalies in women with recurrent miscarriage: a cross-sectional study

Journal

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
Volume 99, Issue 7, Pages 1916-+

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.01.152

Keywords

Recurrent miscarriage; uterus; congenital uterine defects; acquired uterine defects; septum

Funding

  1. Andrew W. Mellon Foundation
  2. University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To determine whether a prior live birth or an increase in number of miscarriages impacted the prevalence of congenital or acquired uterine anomalies in women with predominantly early recurrent miscarriage (RM). Design: Single-center, cross-sectional study. Setting: Patients with RM at a private practice. Patient(s): Eight hundred seventy-five women who had two or more consecutive miscarriages. Intervention(s): None. Main Outcome Measure(s): Frequencies of congenital uterine anomalies (bicornuate, didelphic, septate, t-shaped, and unicornuate uteri) and acquired uterine anomalies (fibroids, polyps, and adhesions). Result(s): A uterine anomaly was identified in 169 (19.3%) of the patients. Patients with primary RM were more likely to have congenital anomalies than patients with secondary RM, particularly septa. The occurrence of a prior live birth, however, did not influence the frequency of acquired uterine anomalies, which were detected in equal frequencies in patients with three or more miscarriages when compared with patients with only two miscarriages. Conclusion(s): Although RM patients with a prior viable birth are less likely to have a uterine anomaly than those who have never given birth, our results support a recommendation for diagnostic imaging of the uterus after two losses in women with secondary RM as well as for those with primary RM. (C)2013 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available