medigraphic.com

2026, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Rev Fac Med UNAM 2026; 69 (2)

Bicornuate Unicollis Uterus: Case Report and Narrative Review

Rodríguez MIX, Chávez JAM, Jiménez HJ, Rivero CJ, Melendez OJA

Language: Spanish
References: 19
Page: 32-38
PDF size: 203.46 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: Müllerian anomalies are congenital malformations of the female genital tract with fertility implications. Bicornuate unicollis uterus represents incomplete fusion of the müllerian ducts with a single cervix. We present the case of a patient with a bicornuate unicollis uterus, chronic pelvic pain, and adhesions, treated with laparoscopic hysterectomy.
Clinical case: A 42-year-old woman with severe chronic pelvic pain. Imaging studies (ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, urotomography) confirmed a bicornuate unicollis uterus with two convergent endometrial cavities. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy with adhesiolysis was performed. Histopathology confirmed a complete bicornuate uterus with focal adenomyosis and basal endometrium.
Conclusions: Optimal management requires a diagnostic algorithm with 3D ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging. Laparoscopic hysterectomy is a safe option in symptomatic patients without reproductive desire. A multidisciplinary approach integrating advanced imaging, minimally invasive surgery, and histopathological analysis is required.


REFERENCES

  1. Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Zamora J, Thornton JG,Raine-Fenning N, Coomarasamy A. The prevalence ofcongenital uterine anomalies in unselected and high-riskpopulations: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17(6):761-771.

  2. Saravelos SH, Cocksedge KA, Li TC. Prevalence and diagnosisof congenital uterine anomalies in women withreproductive failure: a critical review. Hum Reprod Update.2008;14(5):415-429.

  3. Reyes-Muńoz E, Salazar-Alzola JC, Ruiz-Gil P, et al. Diagnosticaccuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound, two-dimensionalultrasound, and laparoscopy/hysteroscopy in thediagnosis of Müllerian anomalies: a prospective study. Diagnostics(Basel). 2019;9(4):149. https://doi.org/qt63

  4. American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Mülleriananomalies classification 2021. Fertil Steril. 2021;116(5):1238-1252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.09.009

  5. Ludwin A, Ludwin I. Comparison of the ESHRE/ESGEand ASRM classification systems for Müllerian anomaliesdemonstrates more frequent diagnosis of septate uteruswith the European system. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(3):569-580. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu336

  6. Peixoto C, Barros É, Rocha-Neves L, et al. Comparativeanalysis of CUME and ESHRE/ESGE criteria inthe diagnosis of septate uterus: a multicenter study. RevBras Ginecol Obstet. 2021;43(12):911-918. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1736304

  7. Kim MA, Kim HS, Kim YH. Reproductive, obstetricand neonatal outcomes in women with congenital uterineanomalies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J ClinMed. 2021;10(21):4797. https://doi.org/qt62

  8. Salim R, Abou-Jaoude L, Ozgur K, et al. Diagnosticaccuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound in the diagnosisof septate uterus: a comparison with the current2D diagnostic modalities. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol.2003;22(6):620-624. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.922

  9. Troiano RN, McCarthy SM. Müllerian duct anomalies:imaging and clinical issues. Radiology. 2004;233(1):19-34.https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2331020777

  10. AAGL Practice Guidelines Committee. Practice report:practice guidelines on intrauterine adhesions. J MinimInvasive Gynecol. 2017;24(5):695-705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2017.05.001

  11. Safier LZ, Rackow BW. Management of Müllerian anomalies.En: UpToDate. Waltham (MA): UpToDate; 2016.

  12. Acién P, Acién M. Embryology of the Müllerian tract:where are we? Hum Reprod Update. 2016;22(1):48-69.https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmv045

  13. Grimbizis GF, Gordts S, Di Spiezio Sardo A, et al. The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genitaltract congenital anomalies. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(8):2032-2044. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/det098

  14. Ouyang Y, Yi Y, Gong F, et al. ESHRE-ESGE versus ASRMclassification in the diagnosis of septate uterus: a retrospectivestudy. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018;298(5):845-850.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-4872-1

  15. Bhamidipaty-Pelosi S, Kyei-Barffour I, Volpert M, et al.Müllerian anomalies and endometriosis: associations and phenotypicvariations. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2024;22(1):157.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-024-01234-7

  16. Jonaityte G, Kagan KO, Prodan NC, et al. How to do a 3Duterus ultrasound? Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2023;307:1839-1845. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06814-4

  17. Morgan MA, Campos A, Murphy A, et al. 3D ultrasound.Radiopaedia.org. 2024. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.53347/rID-33139

  18. Sereke SG. ASRM Müllerian anomalies classification2021. Radiopaedia.org. 2025. Disponible en: https://doi.org/10.53347/rID-213953

  19. Stehouwer B, Veldhuis W, Braat M. Müllerian duct anomalies.Radiology Assistant. 2021. Disponible en: https://tinyurl.com/2ckpbx3c




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com