Frequency of Congenital Uterine Anomalies in Women with Infertility

Authors

  • Iram Khan Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Lady Willingdon Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan
  • Rabia Wajid Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Lady Willingdon Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v6i10.2267

Keywords:

Infertility, Uterine Abnormalities, Müllerian Ducts, Septate Uterus, Hysterosalpingography, Ultrasonography

Abstract

Congenital uterine anomalies are developmental malformations of the Müllerian ducts that may impair implantation, fertility, and subsequent obstetric outcomes. Their burden among infertile women remains underreported in local clinical settings, making routine uterine assessment an important component of infertility evaluation. Objective: To determine the frequency and types of congenital uterine anomalies among women presenting with infertility at a tertiary care hospital. Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Lady Willingdon Hospital, Lahore, from June 2025 to August 2025. A total of 104 women of reproductive age presenting with primary or secondary infertility were enrolled through non-probability consecutive sampling. Women with other identifiable causes of infertility, including uterine fibroids, ovarian cysts, tubal blockage, male-factor infertility, previous uterine surgery, and significant systemic comorbidities, were excluded. Demographic and clinical data were collected using a structured proforma. All participants underwent two-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography followed by hysterosalpingography for assessment of uterine morphology. Congenital uterine anomalies were classified according to the American Fertility Society classification system. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 25.0, and post-stratification analysis was performed using chi-square or Fisher’s exact test, with p≤0.05 considered statistically significant. Results: The mean age of participants was 31.4±6.2 years, and the mean BMI was 27.3±5.1 kg/m². Primary infertility was observed in 62 women (59.6%), while 42 women (40.4%) had secondary infertility. The mean duration of infertility was 4.7±3.1 years. Congenital uterine anomalies were identified in 7 women, giving an overall frequency of 6.73% (95% CI: 2.73%–13.31%). Septate uterus was the most common anomaly, observed in 3 affected women (42.9%), followed by bicornuate uterus in 2 (28.6%), arcuate uterus in 1 (14.3%), and unicornuate uterus in 1 (14.3%). Among women with congenital uterine anomalies, primary infertility was more common than secondary infertility (71.4% vs. 28.6%), although this association was not statistically significant (p=0.699). Family history showed a significant association with congenital uterine anomalies, with a higher frequency among women with positive family history than those without it (21.1% vs. 3.5%; p=0.020). Conclusion: Congenital uterine anomalies were present in a clinically meaningful proportion of infertile women, with septate uterus being the most frequent anomaly. A positive family history was significantly associated with congenital uterine anomalies. These findings support the integration of routine uterine structural assessment into infertility workup to facilitate early diagnosis, counseling, and timely management of potentially correctable anomalies.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
131

References

1. Ludwin A, Coelho Neto MA, Ludwin I, Nastri CO, Costa W, Acién M, et al. Congenital Uterine Malformation by Experts (CUME): diagnostic criteria for T-shaped uterus. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020;55(6):815-829. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.20845

2. Sugi MD, Penna R, Jha P, Poder L, Behr SC, Courtier J, et al. Müllerian duct anomalies: role in fertility and pregnancy. Radiographics. 2021;41(6):1857-1875. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2021210022

3. Zambrotta E, Gregorio LM, Agliozzo R, Maugeri GC, Gulino FA, Cutello S, et al. Congenital uterine anomalies and perinatal outcomes: a retrospective single-center cohort study. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2021;48(1):160-163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31083/j.ceog.2021.01.2198

4. Mandelbaum RS, Anderson ZS, Masjedi AD, Violette CJ, McGough AM, Doody KA, et al. Obstetric outcomes of women with congenital uterine anomalies in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2024;6(8):101396. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101396

5. Kim MA, Kim HS, Kim YH. Reproductive, obstetric and neonatal outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Med. 2021;10(21):4797. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10214797

6. Jayaprakasan K, Ojha K. Diagnosis of congenital uterine abnormalities: practical considerations. J Clin Med. 2022;11(5):1251. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11051251

7. Pfeifer SM, Attaran M, Goldstein J, Lindheim SR, Petrozza JC, Rackow BW, et al. ASRM Müllerian anomalies classification 2021. Fertil Steril. 2021;116(5):1238-1252. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.09.025

8. 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(6):944-955. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(16)59942-7

9. Shahzad H, John A, Ali A, Ashraf A, Naeem MA. Incidence of infertility in females and evaluation of its causes using ultrasonography. Pak BioMed J. 2022;5(4):55-58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54393/pbmj.v5i4.342

10. Al-Attar RMT, Amin YK. Congenital anomalies of reproductive system among infertile women attending Dr. Khawer Center for Infertility and IVF in Maternity Teaching Hospital in Erbil city: a retrospective study. Zanco J Med Sci. 2019;23(3):368-374. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15218/zjms.2019.046

11. Hosseinirad H, Yadegari P, Falahieh FM, Shahrestanaki JK, Karimi B, Afsharzadeh N, et al. The impact of congenital uterine abnormalities on pregnancy and fertility: a literature review. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2021;25(4):608-616. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20210021

12. Theodoridis TD, Pappas PD, Grimbizis GF. Surgical management of congenital uterine anomalies, including indications and surgical techniques. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2019;59:66-76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2019.02.006

13. Coelho Neto MA, Ludwin A, Petraglia F, Martins WP. Definition, prevalence, clinical relevance and treatment of T-shaped uterus: systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021;57(3):366-377. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.23108

14. Rikken JFW, Kowalik CR, Emanuel MH, Bongers MY, Spinder T, Jansen FW, et al. Septum resection for women of reproductive age with a septate uterus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;1(1):CD008576. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008576.pub4

15. Albalushi H, Ba-Alawi A, Aljabri R, Al Khaduri M. Prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies and tubal blockage in infertile Omani women: a retrospective study. Oman Med J. 2023;38(1):e463. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5001/omj.2023.48

16. Nayak PK, Mahapatro P, Mohapatra PC. Prevalence and pattern of Müllerian anomalies in women attending a tertiary care hospital in Odisha. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(6):QC01-QC04.

17. Bhatt CJ, Bhatt AB, Sisodia S. Congenital uterine anomalies and their implications in infertility. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2020;30(3):322-329.

18. Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Zamora J, Thornton JG, Raine-Fenning N, Coomarasamy A. The prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies in unselected and high-risk populations: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(6):761-771. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmr028

19. Pervaiz S, Naeem MA, Ali A, John A, Batool N. Frequency of uterine anomalies associated with persistent miscarriages in pregnancy on ultrasound. Pak J Health Sci. 2022;3(1):55-58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54393/pjhs.v3i01.54

20. Sutan S, Sabir SA, Liaqat N, Qazi Q. Obstetrical outcome in pregnant women presenting with congenital uterine anomalies. Pak J Med Sci. 2025;41(4):1078-1081. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.41.4.10793

21. Shahid S, Jamal P, Zamir N, Khel SH. Uterine anomalies in women with subfertility: a cross-sectional study. J Health Rehabil Res. 2024;4(3):1-4.

22. Al-Bdairi AAH, Al-Hindy HAAM, Rahmatullah WS, Alshukri WSM. Impact of congenital uterine anomalies on ectopic pregnancy: a cross-sectional observational study of 510 cases. Med J Babylon. 2024;21(Suppl 1):S52-S57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/mjbl.mjbl_352_23

23. Khander A, Stern E, Gerber RS, Fox NS. The association between obstetrical history and preterm birth in women with uterine anomalies. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018;31(19):2550-2554. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2017.1347625

24. Malhotra R, Garcia de Paredes J, Smith A, Chemerinski A, Doshi D, Morelli SS. Obesity epidemic and its impact on female fertility: current understanding and future directions. Cureus. 2025;17(7):e87283. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.87283

25. Schon SB, Cabre HE, Redman LM. The impact of obesity on reproductive health and metabolism in reproductive-age females. Fertil Steril. 2024;122(2):194-203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2024.04.036

26. Soomro T, Tikmani SS. Frequency of birth defects and its relationship to parents having interfamily marriages at a tertiary care hospital. J Gen Pract. 2016;4(4). DOI: https://doi.org/10.4172/2329-9126.1000265

27. Woolner AMF, Bhattacharya S. Intergenerational trends in reproduction: infertility and pregnancy loss. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2023;86:102305. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2022.102305

Downloads

Published

2025-10-31

How to Cite

1.
Khan I, Wajid R. Frequency of Congenital Uterine Anomalies in Women with Infertility. Biol Clin Sci Res J [Internet]. 2025 Oct. 31 [cited 2026 Aug. 12];6(10):82-6. Available from: https://bcsrj.com/ojs/index.php/bcsrj/article/view/2267

Issue

Section

Original Research Articles

Categories

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.