Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Influence of Hysteroscopic Metroplasty on Reproductive Outcome in Patients with Infertility and Recurrent Pregnancy Loss Cover

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

PRILOZI
Volume 35 (2014): Issue 2 (October 2014)
By:  and    
Open Access
|Dec 2014
References

References

  1. 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.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  2. 2. Lin P, Bhatnagar K, Nettleton S, Nakajima S. Female genital anomalies affecting reproduction. Fertil Steril. 2002 Nov; 78(5): 899–915.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  3. 3. Propst AM, Hill JA 3rd. Anatomic factors associated with recurrent pregnancy loss. Semin Reprod Med. 2000; 18(4): 341–50. Review.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  4. 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.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  5. 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. 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. 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.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  8. 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.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  9. 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.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  10. 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.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  11. 11. Daly DC, Maier D, Soto-Albors C. Hysteroscopic metroplasty: six years experience. Obstet Gynecol. 1989; 73: 201–5.
    Search in Google Scholar
  12. 12. Fedele L, Bianchi S. Hysteroscopic metroplasty for septate uterus. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 1995; 22: 473–489.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  13. 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.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  14. 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.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  15. 15. Jacobsen LJ, De Cherney A. Results of conventional and hysteroscopic surgery. Hum Reprod. 1997; 12: 1376–1381.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  16. 16. Pellicer A. Shall we operate Mullerian defects? An introduction to the debate. Hum Reprod 1997; 12: 1371–1372.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  17. 17. Jones WH. Mullerian anomalies. Hum Reprod. 1998; 13: 789–791.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  18. 18. Homer HA, Li T, Cooke ID. The septate uterus: a review of management and reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril. 2000; 73: 1–14.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  19. 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. 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.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  21. 21. Simpson JL, Mills JL, Holmes LB, et al: Low fetal loss rates after ultrasound-proved viability in early pregnancy. JAMA 1987; 258: 2555.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  22. 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. 23. Gilmore DH, McNay MB: Spontaneous fetal loss rate in early pregnancy. Lancet. 1985; 1: 107.
    Search in Google Scholar
  24. 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.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  25. 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. 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.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  27. 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.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  28. 28. Acien P. Reproductive performance of women with uterine malformations. Hum Reprod. 1993; 8: 122–126.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  29. 29. Buttram CV. Mullerian anomalies and their manage ment. Fertil Steril. 1983; 40: 159–163.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  30. 30. Heinonen KP, Saarikoski S, Postynen P. Repro ductive performance of women with uterine anoma lies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1982; 61: 157–162.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  31. 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. 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. 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.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  34. 34. Fedele L, Bianchi S, Frontino G. Septums and synechiae:approaches to surgical correction. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 49: 767–788.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  35. 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.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/prilozi-2014-0012 | Journal eISSN: 1857-8985 (formerly 0350-1914) | Journal ISSN: 1857-9345
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 95 - 103
Published on: Dec 1, 2014
Published by: Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 3 issues per year
Keywords:
hysteroscopy,
reproduction,
infertility,
pregnancy
Related subjects:
Social sciences,
Education,
Education, other

© 2014 Gligor Tofoski, Vesna Antovska, published by Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Volume 35 (2014): Issue 2 (October 2014)
Previous article
Next article