Didelphys uterus: a successful induction of labor in a case of intrauterine fetal death near term-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Didelphys uterus: a successful induction of labor in a case of intrauterine fetal death near term

Published:2022-01-01 Issue:1 Volume:11 Page:
ISSN:2192-8959
Container-title:Case Reports in Perinatal Medicine
language:en
Short-container-title:

Author:

Paola Algeri¹^ORCID,Patrizia D’Oria¹,Valentina Toto²,Paola Fenili¹,Santina Ermito¹,Silvia Bonalumi¹,Denise Rinaldo¹,Massimo Ciammella¹

Affiliation:

1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology , ASST Bergamo-est, Seriate , Bergamo , Italy

2. Complex Unit of Pathological Anatomy and Medical Genetics, San Paolo Hospital , Milan , Italy

Abstract

Abstract Objectives Müllerian anomalies are associated with infertility and worse pregnancy outcomes. Case presentation A 34-years-old primigravida patient affected by didelphys uterus and type 2 diabetes mellitus was admitted at 36.4 weeks with intrauterine fetal death. Labor was induced with oral Mifepristone and vaginal Dinoprostone. She had an uneventful vaginal delivery. Conclusions Pre-gestational evaluation should be recommended in each woman, in order to optimize clinical conditions in case of a chronic disease; moreover, if the patient is infertile Müllerian malformations should be excluded. In a didelphys uterus, the combination of Mifepristone and Dinoprostone could be a safe option for labor induction.

Publisher

Walter de Gruyter GmbH

Subject

Obstetrics and Gynecology,Embryology,Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health

Link

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/crpm-2021-0078/pdf

Reference15 articles.

1. Chan, YK, Jayaprakasan, K, Zamora, J, Thornton, J, Raine-Fenning, N, Coomarasamy, A. The prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies in unselected and high-risk populations: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2011;17:761–71. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmr028.

2. The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, Müllerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril 1988;49:944–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(16)59942-7.

3. Grimbizis, GF, Gordts, S, Sardo, ADS, Brucker, S, De Angelis, C, Gergolet, M, et al.. The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Hum Reprod 2013;28:2032–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/det098.

4. Raga, F, Bauset, C, Remohi, J, Bonilla-Musoles, F, Simón, C, Pellicer, A. Reproductive impact of congenital Mullerian anomalies. Hum Reprod 1997;12:2277–81. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/12.10.2277.

5. Heinonen, PK. Clinical implications of the didelphic uterus: long-termfollow-up of 49 cases. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2000;91:183–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0301-2115(99)00259-6.