Research Progress on Diagnosis and Treatment of Arcuate Uterus

doi:10.12280/gjszjk.20250320

Abstract

Abstract:

Arcuate uterus is a relatively common type of congenital uterine malformation, resulting from incomplete absorption of the median septum during the process of müllerian duct fusion. It is characterized by a mild indentation of the endometrium at the fundus into the uterine cavity. The diagnostic methods and criteria for arcuate uterus vary across studies. Typically, the depth of indentation of the endometrium at the fundus is less than 1 cm, and the central angle of the indentation is usually greater than 90 degrees. Three-dimensional ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, hysteroscopy, and/or laparoscopy can aid in the diagnosis. The current relationship between arcuate uterus and adverse pregnancy outcomes remains unclear. The patients with arcuate uterus complicated by infertility, recurrent miscarriage, or poor obstetric outcomes may undergo surgical treatment, which is performed via hysteroscopic metroplasty for arcuate uterus. The therapeutic efficacy of surgery is a subject of controversy among different studies. In this article, we review the definition and diagnostic criteria, diagnostic methods, impact on pregnancy outcomes, surgical indications, and postoperative pregnancy outcomes of arcuate uterus, to offer new insights for the individualized diagnosis and treatment of arcuate uterus and further enhance female fertility.

Key words: Congenital abnormalities, Pregnancy outcome, Arcuate uterus, Müllerian anomalies, Three-dimensional ultrasound

ZHANG Dong-can, HE Ling, ZHANG Hui-ying, TIAN Wen-yan. Research Progress on Diagnosis and Treatment of Arcuate Uterus[J]. Journal of International Reproductive Health/Family Planning, 2025, 44(6): 506-510.

References 30

[1]	Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Zamora J, et al. The prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies in unselected and high-risk populations: a systematic review[J]. Hum Reprod Update, 2011, 17(6):761-771. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmr028. pmid: 21705770
[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[J]. Fertil Steril, 1988, 49(6):944-955. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)59942-7. pmid: 3371491
[3]	Salim R, Woelfer B, Backos M, et al. Reproducibility of three-dimensional ultrasound diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies[J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2003, 21(6):578-582. doi: 10.1002/uog.127.
[4]	Ludwin A, Ludwin I. Comparison of the ESHRE-ESGE and ASRM classifications of Müllerian duct anomalies in everyday practice[J]. Hum Reprod, 2015, 30(3):569-580. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deu344.
[5]	Pfeifer SM, Attaran M, Goldstein J, et al. ASRM müllerian anomalies classification 2021[J]. Fertil Steril, 2021, 116(5):1238-1252. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.09.025. pmid: 34756327
[6]	Ludwin A, Martins WP, Nastri CO, et al. Congenital Uterine Malformation by Experts (CUME): better criteria for distinguishing between normal/arcuate and septate uterus?[J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2018, 51(1):101-109. doi: 10.1002/uog.18923. pmid: 29024135
[7]	中华医学会妇产科学分会, 中国医师协会妇产科医师分会女性生殖道畸形学组. 女性生殖器官畸形命名及定义修订的中国专家共识(2022版)[J]. 中华妇产科杂志, 2022, 57(8):575-580. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112141-20220321-00177.
[8]	Gürses C, Kaya Kılıç K. Diagnostic Concordance and Discrepancies in 3D TVUS and MRI of Congenital Uterine Malformations across the ASRM 2016, ASRM 2021, ESHRE/ESGE 2016, and CUME 2018[J]. Curr Med Imaging,2023 Nov 29. doi: 10.2174/0115734056244136231120075443. Epub ahead of print.
[9]	王幼娥, 唐敏娟, 王欢. 经阴道三维超声成像在先天性子宫畸形诊断中的临床价值[J]. 临床和实验医学杂志, 2025, 24(13):1447-1451. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-4695.2025.13.027.
[10]	Negm SM, Kamel RA, El-Zayat HA, et al. The value of three-dimensional ultrasound in identifying Mullerian anomalies at risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes[J]. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 2022, 35(16):3201-3208. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2020.1815189.
[11]	Xydias EM, Liasidi PN, Papageorgouli D, et al. Three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound versus MRI in the diagnosis and classification of congenital uterine anomalies: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2025,312:114560. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2025.114560.
[12]	Dixit R, Duggireddy CS, Pradhan GS. Mullerian anomalies: revisiting imaging and classification[J]. Insights Imaging, 2025, 16(1):40. doi: 10.1186/s13244-024-01879-2.
[13]	Ramakrishnan KK, Jerosha S, Subramonian SG, et al. Comparing the Diagnostic Efficacy of 3D Ultrasound and MRI in the Classification of Müllerian Anomalies[J]. Cureus, 2024, 16(10):e70632. doi: 10.7759/cureus.70632.
[14]	中国医师协会超声医师分会. 生理盐水灌注宫腔声学造影中国专家共识(2023版)[J]. 中华超声影像学杂志, 2023, 32(5):377-385. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn131148-20230116-00033.
[15]	Yousif A, Moustafa A, Abuzeid OM, et al. Limitations of imaging screening tests in the detection of incomplete uterine septum or arcuate uterine anomaly[J]. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2022, 159(2):544-549. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.14180.
[16]	Feng Y, Zhang S, Zhou Y, et al. Three-dimensional measurement and analysis of morphological parameters of the uterus in infertile women[J]. Quant Imaging Med Surg, 2022, 12(4):2224-2237. doi: 10.21037/qims-21-812.
[17]	Carbonnel M, Pirtea P, de Ziegler D, et al. Uterine factors in recurrent pregnancy losses[J]. Fertil Steril, 2021, 115(3):538-545. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.12.003. pmid: 33712099
[18]	Fedele F, Bulfoni A, Parazzini F, et al. Assisted reproductive technology outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies: a systematic review[J]. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2024, 310(5):2315-2332. doi: 10.1007/s00404-024-07666-0. pmid: 39227392
[19]	Caballero Campo M, Pérez Milán F, Carrera Roig M, et al. Impact of congenital uterine anomalies on obstetric and perinatal outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Facts Views Vis Obgyn, 2024, 16(1):9-22. doi: 10.52054/FVVO.16.1.004. pmid: 38551471
[20]	梁爽, 程兰兰, 禹果, 等. 不同类型子宫畸形对IVF/ICSI-ET助孕妊娠结局的影响[J]. 生殖医学杂志, 2021, 30(7):878-884. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-3845.2021.07.007.
[21]	Kadour Peero E, Badeghiesh A, Baghlaf H, et al. What type of uterine anomalies had an additional effect on pregnancy outcomes, compared to other uterine anomalies? An evaluation of a large population database[J]. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, 2022, 35(26):10494-10501. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2022.2130240.
[22]	Tomaževič T, Ban-Frangež H, Virant-Klun I, et al. Septate, subseptate and arcuate uterus decrease pregnancy and live birth rates in IVF/ICSI[J]. Reprod Biomed Online, 2010, 21(5):700-705. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.06.028. pmid: 20864409
[23]	Yoshihara T, Okuda Y, Yoshino O. Diagnosis of arcuate uterus using three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound and investigation of its association with perinatal complications[J]. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2025, 168(3):1073-1078. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.15961.
[24]	Connolly CT, Hill MB, Klahr RA, et al. Arcuate Uterus as an Independent Risk Factor for Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes[J]. Am J Perinatol, 2024, 41(2):167-173. doi: 10.1055/a-1674-5927.
[25]	Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Uterine septum: a guideline[J]. Fertil Steril, 2016, 106(3):530-540. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.05.014. pmid: 27235766
[26]	夏恩兰. 子宫畸形的诊治[J]. 中国实用妇科与产科杂志, 2018, 34(4):367-371. doi: 10.19538/j.fk2018040105.
[27]	Piriyev E, Schiermeier S, Römer T. Electrosurgical hysteroscopic metroplasty for septate uterus: a single-center retrospective analysis of safety, adhesion rates, and perioperative outcomes[J]. Arch Gynecol Obstet,2025 Sep 4. doi: 10.1007/s00404-025-08169-2. Epub ahead of print.
[28]	John BM, Mathew S. Reproductive Outcomes After Fibrous Tissue Excision Prior to IVF in Women With Arcuate Uterus[J]. J Minim Invasive Gynecol, 2015, 22(6S):S182. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.08.670.
[29]	Abuzeid M, Ghourab G, Abuzeid O, et al. Reproductive outcome after IVF following hysteroscopic division of incomplete uterine septum/arcuate uterine anomaly in women with primary infertility[J]. Facts Views Vis Obgyn, 2014, 6(4):194-202. pmid: 25593694
[30]	Taş kın EA, Dilbaz K, Demir D, et al. Reproductive Performance and Obstetric Outcomes after Hysteroscopic Metroplasty for T Shaped Uterus[J]. Reprod Sci, 2025, 32(9):2997-3004. doi: 10.1007/s43032-025-01951-2.