Cargando…

The comprehensiveness of the ESHRE/ESGE classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies: a systematic review of cases not classified by the AFS system

STUDY QUESTION: How comprehensive is the recently published European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE)/European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) classification system of female genital anomalies? SUMMARY ANSWER: The ESHRE/ESGE classification provides a comprehensive des...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Di Spiezio Sardo, A., Campo, R., Gordts, S., Spinelli, M., Cosimato, C., Tanos, V., Brucker, S., Li, T. C., Gergolet, M., De Angelis, C., Gianaroli, L., Grimbizis, G.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4400201/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25788565
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev061
_version_ 1782367004172222464
author Di Spiezio Sardo, A.
Campo, R.
Gordts, S.
Spinelli, M.
Cosimato, C.
Tanos, V.
Brucker, S.
Li, T. C.
Gergolet, M.
De Angelis, C.
Gianaroli, L.
Grimbizis, G.
author_facet Di Spiezio Sardo, A.
Campo, R.
Gordts, S.
Spinelli, M.
Cosimato, C.
Tanos, V.
Brucker, S.
Li, T. C.
Gergolet, M.
De Angelis, C.
Gianaroli, L.
Grimbizis, G.
author_sort Di Spiezio Sardo, A.
collection PubMed
description STUDY QUESTION: How comprehensive is the recently published European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE)/European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) classification system of female genital anomalies? SUMMARY ANSWER: The ESHRE/ESGE classification provides a comprehensive description and categorization of almost all of the currently known anomalies that could not be classified properly with the American Fertility Society (AFS) system. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Until now, the more accepted classification system, namely that of the AFS, is associated with serious limitations in effective categorization of female genital anomalies. Many cases published in the literature could not be properly classified using the AFS system, yet a clear and accurate classification is a prerequisite for treatment. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE AND DURATION: The CONUTA (CONgenital UTerine Anomalies) ESHRE/ESGE group conducted a systematic review of the literature to examine if those types of anomalies that could not be properly classified with the AFS system could be effectively classified with the use of the new ESHRE/ESGE system. An electronic literature search through Medline, Embase and Cochrane library was carried out from January 1988 to January 2014. Three participants independently screened, selected articles of potential interest and finally extracted data from all the included studies. Any disagreement was discussed and resolved after consultation with a fourth reviewer and the results were assessed independently and approved by all members of the CONUTA group. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Among the 143 articles assessed in detail, 120 were finally selected reporting 140 cases that could not properly fit into a specific class of the AFS system. Those 140 cases were clustered in 39 different types of anomalies. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The congenital anomaly involved a single organ in 12 (30.8%) out of the 39 types of anomalies, while multiple organs and/or segments of Müllerian ducts (complex anomaly) were involved in 27 (69.2%) types. Uterus was the organ most frequently involved (30/39: 76.9%), followed by cervix (26/39: 66.7%) and vagina (23/39: 59%). In all 39 types, the ESHRE/ESGE classification system provided a comprehensive description of each single or complex anomaly. A precise categorization was reached in 38 out of 39 types studied. Only one case of a bizarre uterine anomaly, with no clear embryological defect, could not be categorized and thus was placed in Class 6 (un-classified) of the ESHRE/ESGE system. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The review of the literature was thorough but we cannot rule out the possibility that other defects exist which will also require testing in the new ESHRE/ESGE system. These anomalies, however, must be rare. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The comprehensiveness of the ESHRE/ESGE classification adds objective scientific validity to its use. This may, therefore, promote its further dissemination and acceptance, which will have a positive outcome in clinical care and research. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): None.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4400201
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44002012015-06-26 The comprehensiveness of the ESHRE/ESGE classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies: a systematic review of cases not classified by the AFS system Di Spiezio Sardo, A. Campo, R. Gordts, S. Spinelli, M. Cosimato, C. Tanos, V. Brucker, S. Li, T. C. Gergolet, M. De Angelis, C. Gianaroli, L. Grimbizis, G. Hum Reprod Original Articles STUDY QUESTION: How comprehensive is the recently published European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE)/European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE) classification system of female genital anomalies? SUMMARY ANSWER: The ESHRE/ESGE classification provides a comprehensive description and categorization of almost all of the currently known anomalies that could not be classified properly with the American Fertility Society (AFS) system. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Until now, the more accepted classification system, namely that of the AFS, is associated with serious limitations in effective categorization of female genital anomalies. Many cases published in the literature could not be properly classified using the AFS system, yet a clear and accurate classification is a prerequisite for treatment. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE AND DURATION: The CONUTA (CONgenital UTerine Anomalies) ESHRE/ESGE group conducted a systematic review of the literature to examine if those types of anomalies that could not be properly classified with the AFS system could be effectively classified with the use of the new ESHRE/ESGE system. An electronic literature search through Medline, Embase and Cochrane library was carried out from January 1988 to January 2014. Three participants independently screened, selected articles of potential interest and finally extracted data from all the included studies. Any disagreement was discussed and resolved after consultation with a fourth reviewer and the results were assessed independently and approved by all members of the CONUTA group. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Among the 143 articles assessed in detail, 120 were finally selected reporting 140 cases that could not properly fit into a specific class of the AFS system. Those 140 cases were clustered in 39 different types of anomalies. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The congenital anomaly involved a single organ in 12 (30.8%) out of the 39 types of anomalies, while multiple organs and/or segments of Müllerian ducts (complex anomaly) were involved in 27 (69.2%) types. Uterus was the organ most frequently involved (30/39: 76.9%), followed by cervix (26/39: 66.7%) and vagina (23/39: 59%). In all 39 types, the ESHRE/ESGE classification system provided a comprehensive description of each single or complex anomaly. A precise categorization was reached in 38 out of 39 types studied. Only one case of a bizarre uterine anomaly, with no clear embryological defect, could not be categorized and thus was placed in Class 6 (un-classified) of the ESHRE/ESGE system. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The review of the literature was thorough but we cannot rule out the possibility that other defects exist which will also require testing in the new ESHRE/ESGE system. These anomalies, however, must be rare. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The comprehensiveness of the ESHRE/ESGE classification adds objective scientific validity to its use. This may, therefore, promote its further dissemination and acceptance, which will have a positive outcome in clinical care and research. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): None. Oxford University Press 2015-05 2015-03-18 /pmc/articles/PMC4400201/ /pubmed/25788565 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev061 Text en © The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Original Articles
Di Spiezio Sardo, A.
Campo, R.
Gordts, S.
Spinelli, M.
Cosimato, C.
Tanos, V.
Brucker, S.
Li, T. C.
Gergolet, M.
De Angelis, C.
Gianaroli, L.
Grimbizis, G.
The comprehensiveness of the ESHRE/ESGE classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies: a systematic review of cases not classified by the AFS system
title The comprehensiveness of the ESHRE/ESGE classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies: a systematic review of cases not classified by the AFS system
title_full The comprehensiveness of the ESHRE/ESGE classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies: a systematic review of cases not classified by the AFS system
title_fullStr The comprehensiveness of the ESHRE/ESGE classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies: a systematic review of cases not classified by the AFS system
title_full_unstemmed The comprehensiveness of the ESHRE/ESGE classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies: a systematic review of cases not classified by the AFS system
title_short The comprehensiveness of the ESHRE/ESGE classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies: a systematic review of cases not classified by the AFS system
title_sort comprehensiveness of the eshre/esge classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies: a systematic review of cases not classified by the afs system
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4400201/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25788565
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev061
work_keys_str_mv AT dispieziosardoa thecomprehensivenessoftheeshreesgeclassificationoffemalegenitaltractcongenitalanomaliesasystematicreviewofcasesnotclassifiedbytheafssystem
AT campor thecomprehensivenessoftheeshreesgeclassificationoffemalegenitaltractcongenitalanomaliesasystematicreviewofcasesnotclassifiedbytheafssystem
AT gordtss thecomprehensivenessoftheeshreesgeclassificationoffemalegenitaltractcongenitalanomaliesasystematicreviewofcasesnotclassifiedbytheafssystem
AT spinellim thecomprehensivenessoftheeshreesgeclassificationoffemalegenitaltractcongenitalanomaliesasystematicreviewofcasesnotclassifiedbytheafssystem
AT cosimatoc thecomprehensivenessoftheeshreesgeclassificationoffemalegenitaltractcongenitalanomaliesasystematicreviewofcasesnotclassifiedbytheafssystem
AT tanosv thecomprehensivenessoftheeshreesgeclassificationoffemalegenitaltractcongenitalanomaliesasystematicreviewofcasesnotclassifiedbytheafssystem
AT bruckers thecomprehensivenessoftheeshreesgeclassificationoffemalegenitaltractcongenitalanomaliesasystematicreviewofcasesnotclassifiedbytheafssystem
AT litc thecomprehensivenessoftheeshreesgeclassificationoffemalegenitaltractcongenitalanomaliesasystematicreviewofcasesnotclassifiedbytheafssystem
AT gergoletm thecomprehensivenessoftheeshreesgeclassificationoffemalegenitaltractcongenitalanomaliesasystematicreviewofcasesnotclassifiedbytheafssystem
AT deangelisc thecomprehensivenessoftheeshreesgeclassificationoffemalegenitaltractcongenitalanomaliesasystematicreviewofcasesnotclassifiedbytheafssystem
AT gianarolil thecomprehensivenessoftheeshreesgeclassificationoffemalegenitaltractcongenitalanomaliesasystematicreviewofcasesnotclassifiedbytheafssystem
AT grimbizisg thecomprehensivenessoftheeshreesgeclassificationoffemalegenitaltractcongenitalanomaliesasystematicreviewofcasesnotclassifiedbytheafssystem
AT dispieziosardoa comprehensivenessoftheeshreesgeclassificationoffemalegenitaltractcongenitalanomaliesasystematicreviewofcasesnotclassifiedbytheafssystem
AT campor comprehensivenessoftheeshreesgeclassificationoffemalegenitaltractcongenitalanomaliesasystematicreviewofcasesnotclassifiedbytheafssystem
AT gordtss comprehensivenessoftheeshreesgeclassificationoffemalegenitaltractcongenitalanomaliesasystematicreviewofcasesnotclassifiedbytheafssystem
AT spinellim comprehensivenessoftheeshreesgeclassificationoffemalegenitaltractcongenitalanomaliesasystematicreviewofcasesnotclassifiedbytheafssystem
AT cosimatoc comprehensivenessoftheeshreesgeclassificationoffemalegenitaltractcongenitalanomaliesasystematicreviewofcasesnotclassifiedbytheafssystem
AT tanosv comprehensivenessoftheeshreesgeclassificationoffemalegenitaltractcongenitalanomaliesasystematicreviewofcasesnotclassifiedbytheafssystem
AT bruckers comprehensivenessoftheeshreesgeclassificationoffemalegenitaltractcongenitalanomaliesasystematicreviewofcasesnotclassifiedbytheafssystem
AT litc comprehensivenessoftheeshreesgeclassificationoffemalegenitaltractcongenitalanomaliesasystematicreviewofcasesnotclassifiedbytheafssystem
AT gergoletm comprehensivenessoftheeshreesgeclassificationoffemalegenitaltractcongenitalanomaliesasystematicreviewofcasesnotclassifiedbytheafssystem
AT deangelisc comprehensivenessoftheeshreesgeclassificationoffemalegenitaltractcongenitalanomaliesasystematicreviewofcasesnotclassifiedbytheafssystem
AT gianarolil comprehensivenessoftheeshreesgeclassificationoffemalegenitaltractcongenitalanomaliesasystematicreviewofcasesnotclassifiedbytheafssystem
AT grimbizisg comprehensivenessoftheeshreesgeclassificationoffemalegenitaltractcongenitalanomaliesasystematicreviewofcasesnotclassifiedbytheafssystem