Authors : Dr. Shivani P S Polireddy; Dr. Santosh D Patil; Dr. Virupaxi V Hattiholi; Dr. Pradeep S Goudar

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 3 - March

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/yc3xfhcu

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/yc3wvjdm

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25mar802

Google Scholar

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Note : Google Scholar may take 15 to 20 days to display the article.

Abstract : Objective: To explore and categorize various Müllerian duct anomalies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and evaluate these findings within the frameworks of the updated American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) system.  Methods: A retrospective analysis of pelvic MRI scans with Müllerian anomalies between July 2023 and December 2024.  Subjects: This study reviewed the pelvic MRI scans and medical records of 19 female patients diagnosed with congenital Müllerian anomalies between July 2023 and December 2024. The patients’ ages ranged from 2 to 63 years, with a mean age of 22 years.  Results: A wide spectrum of Müllerian anomalies was observed in the study population, with the distribution of 3 patients (15.7%) Müllerian hypoplasia/ agenesis (type I), 5 patients (26.3%) bicornuate anomaly (type IV), 7 patients (36.8%) septate uterus (type V) and 3 patients (15.7%) arcuate uterus (type VI). No patients were identified to have didelphus, unicornuate or DES drug related anomalies Figure 1,2)  Conclusion: MRI proved to be an invaluable tool for accurately identifying and characterizing Müllerian anomalies, regardless of their complexity. The ASRM system, with its simplified and visually descriptive approach, was particularly advantageous in the radiological setting, providing clarity and streamlining the classification process.

Keywords : Müllerian Duct Anomalies, ASRM Classification System, American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) System, MRI in Müllerian, Imaging in Müllerian.

References :

1. Pfeifer SM, Attaran M, Goldstein J, Lindheim SR, Petrozza JC, Rackow BW, Siegelman E, Troiano R, Winter T, Zuckerman A, Ramaiah SD. ASRM müllerian anomalies classification 2021. Fertility and sterility. 2021 Nov 1;116(5):1238-52.
2. Elsaed YT, Shebreya NH, Ragheb SR. MRI IMAGING APPEARANCE IN MULLERIAN DUCT ANOMALIES. Ain Shams Medical Journal. 2023 Jun 1;74(2):365-74.
3. Mueller GC, Hussain HK, Smith YR, Quint EH, Carlos RC, Johnson TD, DeLancey JO. Mullerian duct anomalies: comparison of MRI diagnosis and clinical diagnosis. American journal of roentgenology. 2007 Dec;189(6):1294-302.
4. Robbins JB, Broadwell C, Chow LC, Parry JP, Sadowski EA. Müllerian duct anomalies: embryological development, classification, and MRI assessment. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2015 Jan;41(1):1-2.
5. 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. Human reproduction update. 2011 Nov 1;17(6):761-71.
6. Buttram Jr VC, Gibbons WE. Müllerian anomalies: a proposed classification (an analysis of 144 cases). Fertility and sterility. 1979 Jul 1;32(1):40-6.