Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jan 11;29(1):48.
doi: 10.1186/s40001-023-01544-2.

Impact of congenital uterine anomalies on reproductive outcomes of IVF/ICSI-embryo transfer: a retrospective study

Jia Kang  1   2   3   4 , Jie Qiao  5   6   7   8   9   10
Affiliations

Impact of congenital uterine anomalies on reproductive outcomes of IVF/ICSI-embryo transfer: a retrospective study

Jia Kang et al. Eur J Med Res. .

Abstract

Objective: To study the impact of congenital uterine anomalies on reproductive outcomes after in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)-embryo transfer (ET).

Methods: A retrospective study including a total of 865women with congenital uterine anomalies and 865 age and admission time matched controls who underwent the first IVF/ICSI-ET cycle between January 2010 and December 2019 was conducted. Women with uterine anomalies were classified into canalization defect (complete septate uterus and subseptate uterus) and unification defect (unicornuate uterus, bicornuate uterus, and didelphus uterus) according to the processes of abnormal embryological development. Control women were selected by age (± 1.0 year) and admission time (± 6 months) matched with a 1:1 ratio. The reproductive outcomes were compared between women with uterine anomalies and the controls. The primary outcome was live birth; secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, preterm delivery, and spontaneous pregnancy loss.

Results: Compared with women with a normal uterus, women with canalization defects were less likely to experience live birth [84/332 (25.3%) vs 128/332 (38.6%), RR: 0.647, 95% CI 0.513-0.815, P < 0.001]. They also had a lower clinical pregnancy rate [126/332 (38.0%) vs 206/332 (62.0%), RR: 0.829, 95% CI 0.690-0.997, P = 0.046] and experienced a higher first-trimester pregnancy loss rate [25/126 (19.8%) vs 11/206 (5.3%), RR: 2.716, 95% CI 1.393-5.295, P = 0.003]. Compared with women with a normal uterus, women with a unification defect were also less likely to experience live birth [132/533 (24.8%) vs 219/533 (41.1%), RR: 0.713, 95% CI 0.586-0.868, P = 0.001]. Women with a unification defect had lower clinical pregnancy rates [182/533 (34.1%) vs 263/533 (49.1%), RR: 0.813, 95% CI 0.695-0.952, P = 0.010] and increased first-trimester pregnancy loss [36/182 (19.8%) vs 20/263 (7.6%), RR: 3.288, 95% CI 1.776-6.085, P < 0.001]. While uterine anomaly seemed not increase the risk of preterm birth, ectopic pregnancy and second-trimester pregnancy loss.

Conclusions: Both canalization defects and unification defects were associated with lower fertility outcomes, including lower live birth rates, lower clinical pregnancy rates, and higher early miscarriage rates.

Keywords: Assisted reproductive outcomes; Congenital uterine anomalies; Embryo transfer; ICSI; IVF.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart of the study
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, mullerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril. 1988;49(6):944–955. doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(16)59942-7. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pfeifer SM, Attaran M, Goldstein J, Lindheim SR, Petrozza JC, Rackow BW, et al. ASRM mullerian anomalies classification 2021. Fertil Steril. 2021;116(5):1238–1252. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.09.025. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Zamora J, Thornton JG, 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(6):761–771. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmr028. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fox NS, Roman AS, Stern EM, Gerber RS, Saltzman DH, Rebarber A. Type of congenital uterine anomaly and adverse pregnancy outcomes. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014;27(9):949–953. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2013.847082. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cahen-Peretz A, Sheiner E, Friger M, Walfisch A. The association between Mullerian anomalies and perinatal outcome. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019;32(1):51–57. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2017.1370703. - DOI - PubMed

Supplementary concepts