Influence of Hysteroscopic Metroplasty on Reproductive Outcome in Patients with Infertility and Recurrent Pregnancy Loss

1. Chan YY, Jayaprakasan, K, Zamora J, et al. The prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies in unselected and high-risk populations: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2011 November; 17(6): 761–771.10.1093/humupd/dmr028Search in Google Scholar

2. Lin P, Bhatnagar K, Nettleton S, Nakajima S. Female genital anomalies affecting reproduction. Fertil Steril. 2002 Nov; 78(5): 899–915.10.1016/S0015-0282(02)03368-XSearch in Google Scholar

3. Propst AM, Hill JA 3rd. Anatomic factors associated with recurrent pregnancy loss. Semin Reprod Med. 2000; 18(4): 341–50. Review.10.1055/s-2000-13723Search in Google Scholar

4. Raga F, Bauset C, Remohi J, Bonilla-Musoles F, Simon C, Pellicer A. Reproductive impact of congenital Mullerian anomalies. Hum Reprod. 1997; 12 (10): 2277–2281.10.1093/humrep/12.10.2277Search in Google Scholar

5. Speroff L, Glass RH, Kase NG. Development of the mullerian system. In: Mitchell C, eds. Clinical gyne cologic endocrinology and infertility. 6th ed Balti more, Md: Williams & Wilkins, Lippincott, 1998; 124.Search in Google Scholar

6. Harger JH, Archer DF, Marchese SG, et al. Etiology of recurrent pregnancy losses and outcome of subse quent pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol. 1983; 62: 574–581.Search in Google Scholar

7. The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal obstruction, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, mullerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril. 1988; 49: 944–55.10.1016/S0015-0282(16)59942-7Search in Google Scholar

8. Saravelos SH, Cocksedge KA, Li TC. Prevalence and diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies in women with reproductive failure: a critical appraisal. Hum Reprod Update. 2008 Sep-Oct; 14(5): 415–29.10.1093/humupd/dmn018Search in Google Scholar

9. Shokeir TA, Shalan HM, El-Shafei MM. Combined diagnostic approach of laparoscopy and hysteroscopy in the evaluation of female infertility: results of 612 patients. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2004 Feb; 30(1): 9–14.10.1111/j.1341-8076.2004.00147.xSearch in Google Scholar

10. Hourvitz A, Ledee N, Gervaise A, Fernandez H, Frydman R, Olivennes F. Should diagnostic hysteroscopy be a routine procedure during diagnostic laparoscopy in women with normal hysterosalpingography? Reprod Biomed Online. 2002 May–Jun; 4(3): 256–60.10.1016/S1472-6483(10)61815-9Search in Google Scholar

11. Daly DC, Maier D, Soto-Albors C. Hysteroscopic metroplasty: six years experience. Obstet Gynecol. 1989; 73: 201–5.Search in Google Scholar

12. Fedele L, Bianchi S. Hysteroscopic metroplasty for septate uterus. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 1995; 22: 473–489.10.1016/S0889-8545(21)00198-4Search in Google Scholar

13. Grimbizis G, Camus M, Tarlatzis BC, Bontis JN, Devroey P. Clinical implications of uterine malfor mations and hysteroscopic treatment results. Hum Reprod Update. 2001; 7(2): 161–74.10.1093/humupd/7.2.16111284660Search in Google Scholar

14. Grimbizis G, Camus M, Clasen K, Tournaye H, De Munck L, Devroey P. Hysteroscopic septum resection in patients with recurrent abortions or infertility. Hum Reprod. 1998; 13: 1188–1193.10.1093/humrep/13.5.1188Search in Google Scholar

15. Jacobsen LJ, De Cherney A. Results of conventional and hysteroscopic surgery. Hum Reprod. 1997; 12: 1376–1381.10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a019589Search in Google Scholar

16. Pellicer A. Shall we operate Mullerian defects? An introduction to the debate. Hum Reprod 1997; 12: 1371–1372.10.1093/humrep/12.7.1371Search in Google Scholar

17. Jones WH. Mullerian anomalies. Hum Reprod. 1998; 13: 789–791.10.1093/humrep/13.4.789Search in Google Scholar

18. Homer HA, Li T, Cooke ID. The septate uterus: a review of management and reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril. 2000; 73: 1–14.10.1016/S0015-0282(99)00480-XSearch in Google Scholar

19. Wilcox AJ, Weinberg CR, O'Connor JF, et al: Inci dence of early loss of pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 1988; 319: 189.Search in Google Scholar

20. Mills JL, Simpson JL, Driscoll SG, et al: Incidence of spontaneous abortion among normal women and insulin-dependent diabetic women whose pregnan cies were identified within 21 days of conception. N Engl J Med. 1988; 319: 1617.10.1056/NEJM198812223192501Search in Google Scholar

21. Simpson JL, Mills JL, Holmes LB, et al: Low fetal loss rates after ultrasound-proved viability in early pregnancy. JAMA 1987; 258: 2555.10.1001/jama.1987.03400180089033Search in Google Scholar

22. Wilson RD, Kendrick V, Wittmann BK, et al: Risk of spontaneous abortion in ultrasonically normal pregnancies. Lancet. 1984; 2: 920.Search in Google Scholar

23. Gilmore DH, McNay MB: Spontaneous fetal loss rate in early pregnancy. Lancet. 1985; 1: 107.Search in Google Scholar

24. Hoesli IM, Walter-Gobel I, Tercanli S, et al: Spon taneous fetal loss rates in a non-selected population. Am J Med Genet. 2001; 100: 106.10.1002/1096-8628(20010422)100:2<106::AID-AJMG1238>3.0.CO;2-LSearch in Google Scholar

25. Ford HB, Schust DJ. Reccurent pregnancy loss: etiology, diagnosis and therapy. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Spring; 2(2): 76–83.Search in Google Scholar

26. Regan L: A prospective study on spontaneous abortion. In Beard RW, Sharp F (eds): Early Pregnancy Loss: Mechanisms and Treatment, London, Sprin-ger-Verlag. 1988, p 22.10.1007/978-1-4471-1658-5_4Search in Google Scholar

27. Knudsen UB, Hansen V, Juul S, Secher NJ. Progno sis of a new pregnancy following previous sponta neous abortions. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1991; 39: 31–36.10.1016/0028-2243(91)90138-BSearch in Google Scholar

28. Acien P. Reproductive performance of women with uterine malformations. Hum Reprod. 1993; 8: 122–126.10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137860Search in Google Scholar

29. Buttram CV. Mullerian anomalies and their manage ment. Fertil Steril. 1983; 40: 159–163.10.1016/S0015-0282(16)47230-4Search in Google Scholar

30. Heinonen KP, Saarikoski S, Postynen P. Repro ductive performance of women with uterine anoma lies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1982; 61: 157–162.10.3109/000163482091565487113692Search in Google Scholar

31. Sendag F, Mermer T, Yucebilgin S, et al. Repro ductive outcomes after hysteroscopic metroplasty for uterine septum. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 37(4): 287–9.Search in Google Scholar

32. Nouri K, Ott J, Huber JC, Fischer EM, et al. Repro ductive outcome after hysteroscopic septoplasty in patients with septate uterus – a retrospective cohort study and systematic review of the literature Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2010; 8: 52.Search in Google Scholar

33. Saygili E, Yildiz S, Erman-AkarM, et al. Repro ductive outcome of septate uterus after hysteroscopic metroplasty. Arch Gynecolog Obstet. 2003; 268: 289–292.10.1007/s00404-002-0378-414504871Search in Google Scholar

34. Fedele L, Bianchi S, Frontino G. Septums and synechiae:approaches to surgical correction. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 49: 767–788.10.1097/01.grf.0000211948.36465.a617082672Search in Google Scholar

35. Roy KK, Singla S, Baruah J, et al. Reproductive outcome following hysteroscopic septal resection in patients with infertility and recurrent abortions. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011; 283: 273–279.10.1007/s00404-009-1336-120041257Search in Google Scholar