Abstract
Objective:
To describe the prevalence of CUA and evaluate reproductive and obstetric outcomes in a population of infertile women with these anomalies.
Method:
We conducted a retrospective cohort study between January 2014 and December 2023, including patients with CUA (n=50) and a control group (n=40) who underwent assisted reproductive technology (ART). We recorded and compared baseline characteristics, reproductive outcomes, and obstetric complications.
Results:
The prevalence of CUA was 1.6%. No significant differences were observed between groups in the number of oocytes, mature oocytes, fertilization rates, embryo development, or pregnancy and live birth rates. In the first IVF-ET cycle, pregnancy (28.5% vs. 14.3%, p=0.102) and live birth (25.7% vs. 9.5%, p=0.081) rates were similar between women with CUA and those with a normal uterus. Likewise, cumulative pregnancy (42% vs. 35%, p=0.552) and live birth (36% vs. 22.5%, p=0.247) rates did not differ. Obstetric outcomes, including first-trimester miscarriage, preterm delivery, fetal growth restriction, low birth weight, and cesarean delivery, were also comparable. Descriptive analysis by CUA subclass showed the lowest pregnancy rate in women with hemi-uterus (25%). Live birth rates were higher after septoplasty in women with complete septate uterus, but not in those with partial septate uterus.
Conclusion:
Pregnancy and live birth rates after ART were not significantly different between women with CUA and those with a normal uterus.
References
Healey A. Embryology of the female reproductive tract. In: Embryology. 2010. p. 21–30.
Akhtar MA, Saravelos SH, Li TC, Jayaprakasan K; Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Reproductive Implications and Management of Congenital Uterine Anomalies: Scientific Impact Paper No. 62 November 2019. BJOG. 2020;127(5):e1-e13.
Fedele F, Bulfoni A, Parazzini F, Levi-Setti PE, Busnelli A. Assisted reproductive technology outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies: a systematic review. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024;310(5):2315-2332.
Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Tan A, Thornton JG, Coomarasamy A, Raine-Fenning NJ. Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies: a systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011t;38(4):371-382.
Venetis CA, Papadopoulos SP, Campo R, Gordts S, Tarlatzis BC, Grimbizis GF. Clinical implications of congenital uterine anomalies: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Reprod Biomed Online 2014;29(6):665–683.
Grimbizis GF, Gordts S, Di Spiezio Sardo A, et al. The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(8):2032-2044.
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Uterine septum: a guideline. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(3):530-540.
Kim MA, Kim HS, Kim YH. Reproductive, Obstetric and Neonatal Outcomes in Women with Congenital Uterine Anomalies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Clin Med. 2021;10(21):4797.
Ban-Frangez H, Tomazevic T, Virant-Klun I, Verdenik I, Ribic-Pucelj M, Vrtacnik Bokal E. The outcome of singleton pregnancies after IVF/ICSI in women before and after hysteroscopic resection of a uterine septum compared to normal controls. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;146(2):184-187.
Şimşek E, Doğan Durdağ G, Alkaş Yağınç D, Aydın Ş, Yüksel Şimşek S, Çağlar Aytaç P. The effect of unicornuate uterus on reproductive outcomes in infertile patients. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2024;302:38-42.
Kang J, Qiao J. Impact of congenital uterine anomalies on reproductive outcomes of IVF/ICSI-embryo transfer: a retrospective study. Eur J Med Res. 2024;29(1):48.
Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, Dyer S, et al. The International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care, 2017. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(3):393-406.
Chew LC, Osuchukwu OO, Reed DJ, et al. Fetal Growth Restriction. [Updated 2024 Aug 11]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025 Jan-.
Jayaprakasan K, Chan YY, Sur S, Deb S, Clewes JS, Raine-Fenning NJ. Prevalence of uterine anomalies and their impact on early pregnancy in women conceiving after assisted reproduction treatment. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37(6):727-732.
Grimbizis GF, Camus M, Tarlatzis BC, Bontis JN, Devroey P. Clinical implications of uterine malformations and hysteroscopic treatment results. Hum Reprod Update. 2001;7(2):161-174.
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;14(5):415-429.
Liang F, Hu W. Pregnancy complications and obstetric outcomes among women with congenital uterine malformations. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2010;109(2):159-160.
Prior M, Richardson A, Asif S, et al. Outcome of assisted reproduction in women with congenital uterine anomalies: a prospective observational study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51(1):110-117.
Paradisi R, Barzanti R, Natali F, et al. Hysteroscopic metroplasty: reproductive outcome in relation to septum size. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014;289(3):671-676.
Rikken JFW, Kowalik CR, Emanuel MH, et al. Septum resection versus expectant management in women with a septate uterus: an international multicentre open-label randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2021;36(5):1260-1267.
ESHRE Guideline Group on RPL; Bender Atik R, Christiansen OB, Elson J, et al. ESHRE guideline: recurrent pregnancy loss: an update in 2022. Hum Reprod Open. 2023;2023(1):hoad002.
Kalaitzopoulos DR, Themeli MZ, Grigoriadis G, et al. Fertility, pregnancy and perioperative outcomes after operative hysteroscopy for uterine septum: a network meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024;309(3):731-744.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Ana Luisa Arteiro, Ana Filipa Ferreira, Ana Sofia Pais, Paulo Cortesão, Teresa Almeida-Santos