The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Reproductive performance of women with uterine malformations
Abstract
The fertility problems of 176 patients with uterine malformations [arcuate (n = 40), bicornuate (n = 49), bicornis-bicollis (n = 17), didelphys (n = 15), unicornuate (n = 24), subseptus (n = 14) and septate uterus (n = 17)] and of 28 women with other genital and/or urinary anomalies but with a normal uterus were studied. Ten patients with a uterine anomaly experienced infertility without other causes (6%). 142 women with uterine malformations and 26 with a normal uterus achieved pregnancy, the total number of pregnancies to date being 383 and 47 in these groups respectively. The outcome of the first pregnancy from women with uterine malformations was similar to that of all pregnancies though less significant. Only 53% of pregnancies in women with uterine malformations ended with a child surviving > 7 days, compared to 89% in women with a normal uterus. The poorest viability results were found in the bicornuate (40%) (47% of pregnancies in this group ended in early abortions), arcuate (45%) and septate uterus groups (59%). The rates of children surviving > 7 days were around 70% in the bicornis-bicollis, didelphys, unicornuate and subseptus uterus groups. Metroplasty in four cases corrected the infertility or repeated abortions in three patients. Cerclages (21) in 14 women increased the live birth rate from 21 to 62%. These results confirm earlier reports that patients with uterine malformations have higher rates of reproductive loss, pre-term delivery, breech presentation and complications that increase obstetric intervention and perinatal mortality. Moreover in our study, pregnancy outcome was poorer in the bicornuate and arcuate uterus groups than in the septate group.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
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
Chan, 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
Clinical implications of congenital uterine anomalies: a meta-analysis of comparative studies
Venetis, C. A., Papadopoulos, S. P., Campo, R., Gordts, S., Tarlatzis, B. C., & Grimbizis, G. F. (2014) · Reproductive BioMedicine Online · doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.09.006 · Cited by 332
Graupera, B., Pascual, M. A., Hereter, L., Browne, J. L., Úbeda, B., Rodríguez, I., & Pedrero, C. (2015) · Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology · doi:10.1002/uog.14825 · Cited by 109
Metadata
- Authors
- Acién, P.
- Venue
- Human Reproduction
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1993-01
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 122-126
- ISSN
- 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2350
- OpenAlex
- W2311467979
- Cited by
- 316
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.71
- 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: Reproductive performance of women with uterine malformations. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137860
- The paper
- Acién, P. (1993). Reproductive performance of women with uterine malformations. Human Reproduction. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137860
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.