The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Clinical implications of uterine malformations and hysteroscopic treatment results
Abstract
Uterine malformations consist of a group of miscellaneous congenital anomalies of the female genital system. Their mean prevalence in the general population and in the population of fertile women is approximately 4.3%, in infertile patients approximately 3.5% and in patients with recurrent pregnancy losses approximately 13%. Septate uterus is the commonest uterine anomaly with a mean incidence of approximately 35% followed by bicornuate uterus (approximately 25%) and arcuate uterus (approximately 20%). It seems that malformed uterus and especially septate uterus is not an infertility factor in itself. However, it may have a part in the delayed natural conception of women with mainly secondary infertility. On the other hand, patients with uterine malformations seem to have an impaired pregnancy outcome even as early as their first pregnancy. Overall term delivery rates in patients with untreated uterine malformations are only approximately 50% and obstetric complications are more frequent. Unicornuate and didelphys uterus have term delivery rates of approximately 45%, and the pregnancy outcome of patients with untreated bicornuate and septate uterus is also poor with term delivery rates of only approximately 40%. Arcuate uterus is associated with a slightly better but still impaired pregnancy outcome with term delivery rates of approximately 65%. Women who have undergone hysteroscopic septum resection and have been reported in the different series comprise a highly selected group of symptomatic patients with term delivery and live birth rates of only approximately 5%. Hysteroscopic treatment seems to restore an almost normal prognosis for the outcome of their pregnancies with term delivery rates of approximately 75% and live birth rates of approximately 85%. It seems, therefore, that hysteroscopic septum resection can be applied as a therapeutic procedure in cases of symptomatic patients but also as a prophylactic procedure in asymptomatic patients in order to improve their chances for a successful delivery.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Rai, R., & Regan, L. (2006) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(06)69204-0 · Cited by 1,227
The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies
Grimbizis, G. F., Gordts, S., Di Spiezio Sardo, A., Brucker, S., De Angelis, C., Gergolet, M., Li, T.-C., Tanos, V., Brolmann, H., Gianaroli, L., et al. (2013) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/det098 · Cited by 884
Self-citationChan, Y. Y., Jayaprakasan, K., Zamora, J., Thornton, J. G., Raine-Fenning, N., & Coomarasamy, A. (2011) · Human Reproduction Update · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmr028 · Cited by 758
Saravelos, S. H., Cocksedge, K. A., & Li, T.-C. (2008) · Human Reproduction Update · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmn018 · Cited by 683
Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies: a systematic review
Chan, Y. Y., Jayaprakasan, K., Tan, A., Thornton, J. G., Coomarasamy, A., & Raine‐Fenning, N. J. (2011) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.10056 · Cited by 564
Metadata
- Authors
- Grimbizis, G. F.
- Venue
- Human Reproduction Update
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2001-03-01
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 161-174
- ISSN
- 1355-4786 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2369
- OpenAlex
- W2126501717
- Cited by
- 949
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Clinical implications of uterine malformations and hysteroscopic treatment results. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/humupd/7.2.161
- The paper
- Grimbizis, G. F. (2001). Clinical implications of uterine malformations and hysteroscopic treatment results. Human Reproduction Update. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/7.2.161
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.