Prevalence of Septate Uterus in a Large Population of Women of Reproductive Age: Comparison of ASRM 2016 and 2021, ESHRE/ESGE, and CUME Diagnostic Criteria: A Prospective Study.

In this study, we aimed to assess and compare the prevalence of septate uterus using the diagnostic criteria of the ESHRE-ESGE, ASRM 2016, ASRM 2021, and CUME classifications. This prospective observational study included 977 women of reproductive age. Each participant underwent a transvaginal ultrasound, and a 3D volume of the uterus was obtained for further analysis. Offline assessment of the uterine coronal plane was conducted to measure uterine wall thickness, fundal indentation length, and indentation angle. The diagnosis of a septate uterus was determined according to the criteria of the ESHRE-ESGE, ASRM, and CUME classifications. The prevalence of septate uterus was then calculated and compared across these classifications. The ESHRE-ESGE classification identified 132 women (13.5%) with a septate uterus. The 2016 ASRM classification identified nine women (0.9%), with an additional nine women falling into a grey zone. The 2021 ASRM classification identified fourteen women (1.4%), with eleven women in the grey zone. The CUME classification identified 23 women (2.4%). The prevalence of septate uterus was significantly higher when using the ESHRE-ESGE criteria compared to the 2016 ASRM [relative risk (RR): 7.33 (95% CI: 4.52-11.90)], the 2021 ASRM [RR: 5.28 (95% CI: 3.47-8.02)], and the CUME [RR: 5.94 (95% CI: 3.72-8.86)] (p < 0.001). Our findings indicate that the ESHRE-ESGE criteria result in a significantly higher prevalence of septate uterus compared to the ASRM and CUME criteria. The ASRM 2016 criteria may underdiagnose more than half of the cases.

Maternal and Fetal Outcomes after Multiple Cesarean Deliveries.

Background/Objectives: Cesarean delivery (CD) is a common procedure, but it can be associated with some increasing risks as the number of previous CD increases. Although women undergoing multiple CDs is very unusual in Spain, our center serves pregnant women with a history of three or more previous CDs with some frequency. We aimed to assess whether women who undergo multiple CDs (≥4) have more risks than those who undergo a third CD. Material and Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted with 161 pregnant women who had undergone ≥ 2 previous CDs and were monitored during their next pregnancy. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the obstetric hemorrhage rate in the multiple CD group and compare it with that in the third CD group. Secondary outcomes regarding maternal and neonatal complications were also analyzed. Results: Hemorrhage (7% and 10%; p = 0.522) and transfusion (3% and 8%; p = 0.141) rates were similar in both groups. The risk of dehiscence of the uterine segment (6% and 24%; p < 0.006), as well as hysterectomy (0 and 6.6%, p = 0.019), difficult abdominal opening (49% and 82%; p = 0.001), peritoneal adhesions (3% and 22%; p < 0.001), and difficult bladder separation (36% and 73%; p < 0.001), was higher in the multiple CD group. No uterine rupture or maternal-neonatal mortality was observed in either of the groups. Conclusions: Since undergoing multiple CD is uncommon, our study may be the largest sample in our environment. Our findings suggest that despite the potential risks of undergoing multiple CDs, maternal and neonatal outcomes are overall favorable.

Diagnostic Performance of Two-Dimensional Ultrasound, Two-Dimensional Sonohysterography and Three-Dimensional Ultrasound in the Diagnosis of Septate Uterus-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The septate uterus is the most common congenital uterine anomaly, and hysteroscopy is the gold standard for diagnosing it. The goal of this meta-analysis is to perform a pooled analysis of the diagnostic performance of two-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography, two-dimensional transvaginal sonohysterography, three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound, and three-dimensional transvaginal sonohysterography for the diagnosis of the septate uterus. METHODS: Studies published between 1990 and 2022 were searched in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. From 897 citations, we selected eighteen studies to include in this meta-analysis. RESULTS: The mean prevalence of uterine septum in this meta-analysis was 27.8%. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 83% and 99% for two-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography (ten studies), 94% and 100% for two-dimensional transvaginal sonohysterography (eight studies), and 98% and 100% for three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound (seven articles), respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of three-dimensional transvaginal sonohysterography was only described in two studies, and we did not calculate the pooled sensitivity and specificity for this method. CONCLUSION: Three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound has the best performance capacity for the diagnosis of the septate uterus.

Diagnosing Septate Uterus Using Three-Dimensional Ultrasound Using Three Different Classifications: An Interobserver and Intraobserver Agreement Study.

OBJECTIVE: Currently, there are up to three different classifications for diagnosing septate uterus. The interobserver agreement among them has been poorly assessed. OBJECTIVE: To assess the interobserver agreement of nonexpert sonographers for classifying septate uterus using the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology/European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESHRE/ESGE), American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), and Congenital Uterine Malformations by Experts (CUME) classifications. METHODS: A total of 50 three-dimensional (3D) volumes of a nonconsecutive series of women with suspected uterine malformation were used. Two nonexpert examiners evaluated a single 3D volume of the uterus of each woman, blinded to each other. The following measurements were performed: indentation depth, indentation angle, uterine fundal wall thickness, external fundal indentation, and indentation-to-wall-thickness (I:WT) ratio. Each observer had to assign a diagnosis in each case, according to the three classification systems (ESHRE/ESGE, ASRM, and CUME). The interobserver agreement regarding the ESHRE/ESGE, ASRM, and CUME classifications was assessed using the Cohen weighted kappa index (k). Agreement regarding the three classifications (ASRM versus ESHRE/ESGE, ASRM versus CUME, ESHRE/ESGE versus CUME) was also assessed. RESULTS: The interobserver agreement between the 2 nonexpert examiners was good for the ESHRE/ESGE (k = 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55-0.92) and very good for the ASRM and CUME classification systems (k = 0.95; 95%CI: 0.86-1.00; and k = 0.91; 95%CI: 0.79-1.00, respectively). Agreement between the ESHRE/ESGE and ASRM classifications was moderate for both examiners. Agreement between the ESHRE/ESGE and CUME classifications was moderate for examiner 1 and good for examiner 2. Agreement between the ASRM and CUME classifications was good for both examiners. CONCLUSION: The three classifications have good (ESHRE/ESGE) or very good (ASRM and CUME) interobserver agreement. Agreement between the ASRM and CUME classifications was higher than that for the ESHRE/ESGE and ASRM and ESHRE/ESGE and CUME classifications.

OBJETIVO: Atualmente, existem até três classificações diferentes para o diagnóstico de útero septado. A concordância interobservador entre eles tem sido pouco avaliada. OBJETIVO: Avaliar a concordância interobservador de ecografistas não especialistas para classificar úteros septados usando as classificações European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology/European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESHRE/ESGE, na sigla em inglês), American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM, na sigla em inglês) e Congenital Uterine Malformations by Experts (CUME, na sigla em inglês). MéTODOS: Foram utilizados 50 volumes tridimensionais (3D) de uma série não consecutiva de mulheres com suspeita de malformação uterina. Dois examinadores não especialistas avaliaram um único volume 3D do útero de cada mulher, mutuamente cegos. As seguintes medidas foram aferidas: profundidade de indentação, ângulo de indentação, espessura da parede do fundo uterino, indentação externa do fundo e relação entre indentação e a espessura da parede (I:WT, na sigla em inglês). Cada observador teve que atribuir um diagnóstico em cada caso, de acordo com os três sistemas de classificação (ESHRE/ESGE, ASRM e CUME). A concordância interobservador em relação às classificações ESHRE/ESGE, ASRM e CUME foi avaliada usando o índice kappa ponderado de Cohen (k). A concordância em relação às três classificações (ASRM versus ESHRE-ESGE, ASRM versus CUME e ESHRE-ESGE versus CUME) também foi avaliada. RESULTADOS: A concordância interobservador entre os 2 examinadores não especialistas foi boa para a classificação ESHRE/ESGE (k = 0,74, intervalo de confiança [IC] 95%: 0,55­0,92) e muito boa para os sistemas de classificação ASRM e CUME (k = 0,95; IC 95%: 0,86­1,00; e k = 0,91; IC95%: 0,79­1,00, respectivamente). A concordância entre as classificações ESHRE/ESGE e ASRM foi moderada para ambos os examinadores. A concordância entre as classificações ESHRE/ESGE e CUME foi moderada para o examinador 1 e boa para o examinador 2. A concordância entre as classificações ASRM e CUME foi boa para ambos os examinadores. CONCLUSãO: As três classificações apresentam concordância interobservador boa (ESHRE/ESGE) ou muito boa (ASRM e CUME). A concordância entre as classificações ASRM e CUME foi maior do que entre as classificações ESHRE/ESGE e ASRM e ESHRE/ESGE e CUME.

Diagnosing Septate Uterus Using Three-Dimensional Ultrasound Using Three Different Classifications: An Interobserver and Intraobserver Agreement Study / Diagnóstico de útero septado com ecografia tridimensional usando três classificações diferentes: Um estudo de concordância interobservador e intraobservador

Abstract Objective Currently, there are up to three different classifications for diagnosing septate uterus. The interobserver agreement among them has been poorly assessed. To assess the interobserver agreement of nonexpert sonographers for classifying septate uterus using the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology/European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESHRE/ESGE), American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), and Congenital Uterine Malformations by Experts (CUME) classifications. Methods A total of 50 three-dimensional (3D) volumes of a nonconsecutive series of women with suspected uterine malformation were used. Two nonexpert examiners evaluated a single 3D volume of the uterus of each woman, blinded to each other. The following measurements were performed: indentation depth, indentation angle, uterine fundal wall thickness, external fundal indentation, and indentation-to-wall-thickness (I:WT) ratio. Each observer had to assign a diagnosis in each case, according to the three classification systems (ESHRE/ESGE, ASRM, and CUME). The interobserver agreement regarding the ESHRE/ESGE, ASRM, and CUME classifications was assessed using the Cohen weighted kappa index (k). Agreement regarding the three classifications (ASRM versus ESHRE/ESGE, ASRM versus CUME, ESHRE/ESGE versus CUME) was also assessed. Results The interobserver agreement between the 2 nonexpert examiners was good for the ESHRE/ESGE (k = 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55-0.92) and very good for the ASRM and CUME classification systems (k = 0.95; 95%CI: 0.86-1.00; and k = 0.91; 95%CI: 0.79-1.00, respectively). Agreement between the ESHRE/ESGE and ASRM classifications was moderate for both examiners. Agreement between the ESHRE/ESGE and CUME classifications was moderate for examiner 1 and good for examiner 2. Agreement between the ASRM and CUME classifications was good for both examiners. Conclusion The three classifications have good (ESHRE/ESGE) or very good (ASRM and CUME) interobserver agreement. Agreement between the ASRM and CUME classifications was higher than that for the ESHRE/ESGE and ASRM and ESHRE/ESGE and CUME classifications.

Resumo Objetivo Atualmente, existem até três classificações diferentes para o diagnóstico de útero septado. A concordância interobservador entre eles tem sido pouco avaliada. Avaliar a concordância interobservador de ecografistas não especialistas para classificar úteros septados usando as classificações European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology/European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESHRE/ESGE, na sigla em inglês), American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM, na sigla em inglês) e Congenital Uterine Malformations by Experts (CUME, na sigla em inglês). Métodos Foram utilizados50volumes tridimensionais (3D)deuma série não consecutiva de mulheres com suspeita de malformação uterina. Dois examinadores não especialistas avaliaram um único volume 3D do útero de cada mulher, mutuamente cegos. As seguintes medidas foram aferidas: profundidade de indentação, ângulo de indentação, espessura da parede do fundo uterino, indentação externa do fundo e relação entre indentação e a espessura da parede (I:WT, na sigla em inglês). Cada observador teve que atribuir um diagnóstico em cada caso, de acordo com os três sistemas de classificação (ESHRE/ESGE, ASRM e CUME). A concordância interobservador em relação às classificações ESHRE/ESGE, ASRM e CUME foi avaliada usando o índice kappa ponderado de Cohen (k). A concordância em relação às três classificações (ASRM versus ESHRE/ESGE, ASRM versus CUME e ESHRE/ ESGE versus CUME) também foi avaliada. Resultados A concordância interobservador entre os 2 examinadores não especialistas foi boa para a classificação ESHRE/ESGE (k = 0,74, intervalo de confiança [IC] 95%: 0,55-0,92) e muito boa para os sistemas de classificação ASRM e CUME (k = 0,95; IC 95%: 0,86-1,00; e k = 0,91; IC95%: 0,79-1,00, respectivamente). A concordância entre as classificações ESHRE/ESGE e ASRM foi moderada para ambos os examinadores. A concordância entre as classificações ESHRE/ESGE e CUME foi moderada para o examinador 1 e boa para o examinador 2. A concordância entre as classificações ASRM e CUME foi boa para ambos os examinadores. Conclusão As três classificações apresentam concordância interobservador boa (ESHRE/ESGE) ou muito boa (ASRM e CUME). A concordância entre as classificações ASRM e CUME foi maior do que entre as classificações ESHRE/ESGE e ASRM e ESHRE/ESGE e CUME.