ﺑﺎﺯﮔﺸﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻔﺤﻪ ﻗﺒﻠﯽ
خرید پکیج
تعداد ایتم قابل مشاهده باقیمانده : 4 مورد

Intrauterine adhesions: Clinical manifestation and diagnosis

Intrauterine adhesions: Clinical manifestation and diagnosis
Authors:
Marcelle I Cedars, MD
Amanda Adeleye, MD
Section Editor:
Robert L Barbieri, MD
Deputy Editor:
Kristen Eckler, MD, FACOG
Literature review current through: Aug 2021. | This topic last updated: Feb 19, 2021.

INTRODUCTION — Intrauterine adhesions (IUAs) are bands of fibrous tissue that form in the endometrial cavity, often in response to a uterine procedure. Disease severity can range from thin strings of tissue to complete obliteration of the cavity. Clinical sequelae include infertility, recurrent pregnancy loss, menstrual abnormalities, and pain. Clinical challenges include primary prevention of adhesions and prevention of recurrent adhesions after surgical treatment.

This topic will discuss the etiology, pathogenesis, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and management of IUA. Related topics on dilation and curettage and postpartum hemorrhage as well as general principles of the evaluation of amenorrhea, infertility, or recurrent pregnancy loss are discussed separately.

(See "Dilation and curettage".)

(See "Overview of postpartum hemorrhage".)

(See "Evaluation and management of secondary amenorrhea".)

(See "Evaluation of female infertility".)

(See "Recurrent pregnancy loss: Evaluation".)

DEFINITION AND TERMINOLOGY — IUAs, or intrauterine synechiae, is a condition in which scar tissue develops within the uterine cavity. IUAs that are accompanied by symptoms (eg, infertility, amenorrhea) are referred to as Asherman syndrome [1-3]. The terms are often used interchangeably. The degree of adhesion formation and the impact of the adhesions on the contour of uterine cavity vary greatly. Minimal disease is characterized by thin strands of tissue stretched across the uterine cavity while severe disease is characterized by complete obliteration of the cavity, with the anterior wall of the uterus densely adherent to the posterior wall.

EPIDEMIOLOGY — The true prevalence of IUAs is difficult to establish, in part because the condition is uncommon in the general population, often asymptomatic, and requires an invasive procedure for diagnosis. In addition, few studies prospectively evaluate for postprocedure adhesions [4]. Estimates of the prevalence range from 1.5 percent as an incidental finding at hysterosalpingogram to 21.5 percent of women with a history of postpartum uterine curettage [3]. In a meta-analysis that included over 900 women evaluated with hysteroscopy within 12 months following a spontaneous abortion (86 percent underwent curettage), the prevalence of IUAs was 19.1 percent [5]. Even relatively minor surgeries can be complicated by IUAs (table 1) [6].

ETIOLOGY AND RISK FACTORS — IUAs appear to result from trauma to the basalis layer of the endometrium (figure 1). The basalis layer appears to be most susceptible to damage in the first four postpartum or postabortal weeks. Emerging data suggest that angiogenic factors such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) are important modulators of endometrial stromal fibrosis [7]. VEGF is downregulated in the endometrial tissue of women with Asherman's syndrome. Subsequent tissue healing on opposing surfaces of the uterus may eventually fuse to produce tissue bridges. These IUAs range from filmy adhesions composed of endometrial tissue to dense adhesions consisting entirely of connective tissue. The resulting adherence of the uterine walls may result in partial or complete obliteration of the uterine cavity. In addition, vascularization may be compromised due to endometrial damage and scarring [8]. These changes account for menstrual abnormalities, frequent dysmenorrhea, infertility, and recurrent pregnancy loss.

Risk factors include intrauterine processes that have the potential to damage the basalis layer, including:

Pregnancy – While it is impossible to separate the impact of pregnancy-related changes from the risk of an intrauterine procedure on the development of subsequent IUAs, pregnancy appears to be an independent risk factor distinct from intrauterine surgery. In a study of 85 women who underwent operative resection of IUAs, 65 percent (n = 55) had a previously undergone a pregnancy-related intrauterine procedure while 12 percent (n = 10 women) had undergone a procedure on a nongravid uterus, most commonly hysteroscopic surgery [9]. A comparison of the reported incidence of IUAs following procedures in both gravid and nongravid uteri is presented in the table (table 2) [5,10-17].

In addition, the duration of pregnancy and the timing of pregnancy relative to the procedure appear to impact the risk of IUA formation. At least one study has reported an increased prevalence of IUAs among patients who underwent curettage after a pregnancy loss at a more advanced gestational age compared with earlier pregnancy loss [18]. A different study reported a higher risk of adhesion formation in women who underwent postpartum curettage two to four weeks after delivery compared with early in the postpartum period [19].

Repeated curettage following pregnancy loss also increases the risk of developing adhesions, but again it is unclear how much of the risk is related to the gravid state versus repetitive intrauterine trauma. In a meta-analysis of 10 prospective studies including 912 women who underwent hysteroscopic evaluation within 12 months of miscarriage, the pooled prevalence of IUAs was nearly 20 percent [5]. Women who had >1 miscarriage had nearly double the odds of IUAs compared with women who had one miscarriage, which was similar to the odds of IUAs for women who had >1 or 1 curettage procedure. Of the 47 women who had expectant or medical management (ie, no intrauterine manipulation), no IUAs were noted. However, the possibility of forming IUAs after expectant or medical management cannot be excluded based on the small number of women studied and lack of randomly assigned study design.

Possible explanations for uterine susceptibility to IUA formation following pregnancy include the low-estrogen state associated with the postpartum or postabortion time period, antagonistic effects from elevated prolactin levels associated with breastfeeding, or postpregnancy physiologic changes that make the basalis layer more susceptible to injury [9,20].

Intrauterine procedures – Intrauterine manipulation, separate from pregnancy, is associated with the development of IUAs as demonstrated by the formation of adhesions after procedures such as myomectomy or curettage in nongravid uteri [10,11,17,21-25]. Some studies suggest that removal of multiple fibroids at the time of hysteroscopic myomectomy is associated with higher risk of IUAs than removal of one fibroid [23,24], while other studies report no differences in the risk of adhesions with a single or multiple hysteroscopic myomectomy [25].

While intrauterine device (IUD) use has been associated with adhesion formation, the data are mainly limited to case reports and IUD use does not appear to be a major cause of IUAs [26]. As discussed below, IUDs can be used to prevent adhesion reformation after surgical resection.

Inflammation or infection – In a study assessing chronic endometritis in women with known IUAs, 35 percent of women (29 of 82) had chronic endometritis confirmed by histology [27]. However, it is not known if the chronic endometritis was the cause or the sequelae of the adhesions. The role of postpartum or postabortal infection in adhesion formation is also unclear as data are limited. A study that evaluated 28 women with significant postcesarean delivery endometritis by hysteroscopy reported the frequency of adhesions in these women was similar to that in controls without postcesarean infection [28]. Another study reported a nonsignificant increase in adhesion formation when dilation and curettage was performed in the presence of concurrent infection [29].

In contrast, genital tuberculosis is associated with IUAs, which are often severe, with complete obliteration of the uterine cavity [30,31]. These patients typically present with amenorrhea and cyclic pelvic pain. The adhesions are believed to form secondary to chronic inflammation of the endometrium. (See "Endometritis unrelated to pregnancy", section on 'Tuberculous endometritis'.)

Uterine compression sutures – Uterine compression sutures (eg, B-Lynch suture) used to treat severe postpartum hemorrhage have been associated with the development of IUAs. In four retrospective reviews, IUAs were diagnosed in 19 to 27 percent of women who received uterine compression sutures to treat postpartum hemorrhage [32-35]. (See "Postpartum hemorrhage: Management approaches requiring laparotomy", section on 'B-Lynch suture' and "Postpartum hemorrhage: Management approaches requiring laparotomy", section on 'Atony' and "Postpartum hemorrhage: Use of intrauterine tamponade to control bleeding".)

CLINICAL PRESENTATION — The classic clinical presentation of IUAs is of an ovulatory woman who develops secondary amenorrhea or hypomenorrhea after an intrauterine procedure, particularly if the procedure was performed on a gravid uterus [4]. Pregnancy-related intrauterine procedures occurring prior to symptom onset have been reported in 91 to 99.8 percent of women treated for Asherman syndrome [36,37]. Alternately, some women are identified as likely having IUAs by imaging studies ordered for the evaluation of infertility (eg, saline infusion sonohysterogram [SIS] (image 1) or hysterosalpingogram [HSG] (image 2)). (See 'Imaging studies' below.)

Typical symptoms associated with IUAs include:

Abnormal uterine bleeding – Abnormal, or changed, menstrual bleeding patterns are reported by 70 to 95 percent of women with IUAs [3,36]. In a literature review of over 2900 patients with IUAs, the abnormal uterine bleeding patterns were the following: amenorrhea (37 percent), light bleeding (31 percent), normal menses (5 percent), and menorrhagia (1 percent) [3]. Patients are more likely to present with secondary amenorrhea than with primary amenorrhea, since endometrial damage is rare prior to menarche. While hypomenorrhea is a poorly defined term, we define it here as menstrual flow that is light (<5 mL) or shortened (<5 days) [38]. However, volume of uterine bleeding is difficult to measure and the interpretation of light menses is typically based on the patient's report of a noticeable decrease in volume or a volume that requires fewer or lighter tampons or pads.

Of note, adhesions can also be asymptomatic. In one report, up to three percent of women with severe adhesions noted cyclic, pain-free menses of normal volume and duration [20].

Infertility – Infertility has been reported in 7 to 40 percent of women with IUAs [3,36]. IUAs are one of the differential diagnoses for the etiology of female infertility, and may be discovered when a HSG or hysteroscopy is performed as part of the standard infertility evaluation. Possible mechanisms by which IUAs could contribute to infertility include blockage of sperm [3] or injury/destruction of the endometrium that prevents implantation of the blastocyst [9]. (See "Evaluation of female infertility", section on 'Assessment of the uterine cavity'.)

Cyclic pelvic pain or dysmenorrhea – Cyclic pelvic pain, which has been reported by 3.5 percent of women with IUAs, is likely due to obstruction of menstrual flow and/or hematometra [39]. Thus, pain is typically associated with amenorrhea or hypomenorrhea. These symptoms are similar to those in women who undergo endometrial ablation and who have both intrauterine scar tissue induced by the procedure and residual functional endometrium. (See "Overview of endometrial ablation", section on 'Postablation tubal sterilization syndrome'.)

Recurrent pregnancy loss – Recurrent pregnancy loss may occur in women with IUAs due to abnormalities of implantation in areas of denuded endometrium or insufficient vascularization. In one study of 85 women who underwent hysteroscopic lysis of IUAs, 13 percent had recurrent pregnancy loss (defined as ≥3 losses) [9]. (See "Recurrent pregnancy loss: Definition and etiology", section on 'Intrauterine adhesions'.)

Incidental finding – IUAs may be found as an incidental finding in a woman who undergoes a pelvic ultrasound, saline infusion SIS, HSG, or hysteroscopy for another indication (eg, infertility, abnormal uterine bleeding). As asymptomatic women do not routinely undergo hysteroscopy or pelvic imaging, the prevalence of asymptomatic IUAs is not known. (See 'Hysteroscopy' below and 'Imaging studies' below.)

DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION

Our approach — The main components of the diagnostic evaluation for IUAs are the medical history and uterine cavity evaluation. We take the following approach:

The assessment begins with a history. We pay particular attention to menstrual symptoms and any pregnancies or intrauterine procedures that occurred prior to the onset of symptoms.

Physical examination is performed next, which is typically normal. Some patients may have undergone a prior pelvic ultrasound as part of their evaluation for infertility or menstrual dysfunction. In some cases, a pelvic ultrasound may demonstrate an unusually thin endometrial lining, in the peri- or postovulatory phase. A pelvic ultrasound is not required for the diagnosis of IUAs.

The next steps are determined by the likelihood of adhesive disease:

Women with a high suspicion of IUAs go directly to endometrial evaluation, typically with hysteroscopy. While hysteroscopy is the gold standard, a saline infusion sonohysterogram (SIS) can also be used to evaluate the uterine cavity [4,40].

Women with a low risk of IUA ultimately often undergo hysteroscopy, but may have additional testing prior. As an example, for women with a primary complaint of oligomenorrhea or amenorrhea and suspicion of IUAs, we first perform SIS or office ultrasound to assess the endometrial thickness. A thin endometrial lining (<4 mm) can be suggestive of IUAs.

History — The key components of the medical history include ascertainment of symptoms (menstrual change, infertility, or dysmenorrhea), history of prior pregnancies, and history of prior uterine procedures. For asymptomatic women, we focus on IUA risk factors such as uterine instrumentation and pelvic infection (eg, endometritis). (See 'Clinical presentation' above and 'Etiology and risk factors' above.)

In addition, in women from regions with endemic tuberculosis, we advise evaluating for pelvic tuberculosis. Some clinicians propose screening at-risk patients for tuberculosis. For those who screen positive, endometrial biopsy is advised [41]. (See "Endometritis unrelated to pregnancy", section on 'Tuberculous endometritis'.)

Physical examination — Bimanual pelvic examination will not reveal IUAs. We do not routinely probe the cervix at the time of physical examination. However, if cervical dilation is required for another indication during evaluation (eg, endometrial biopsy), practitioners may note difficulty passing a dilator during the procedure due to obstructive adhesions.

Ultrasound — Ultrasound is a very useful adjunct during the early evaluation of patients with amenorrhea and/or a history suggestive of IUAs. A very thin endometrium following amenorrhea and/or endometrial irregularity with hyperechoic regions may be suggestive of IUAs. However, while ultrasound findings can be suggestive of IUAs, this study is not definitive.

Estrogen/progestin withdrawal test — We do not routinely perform an estrogen/progestin withdrawal test for women suspected of having IUAs because the test takes additional time and only further delays the diagnosis. An estrogen-progestin withdrawal test is a two-month process during which the patient receives progestin alone followed by estrogen and progestin. The test is appropriate for some women being evaluated for amenorrhea. (See "Evaluation and management of secondary amenorrhea".)

Hysteroscopy — Hysteroscopy allows direct visualization of the presence, extent, and morphologic characteristics of IUAs (image 3). In addition, the uterine cavity can be assessed to determine how much of the endometrial surface appears viable. Hysteroscopy also allows for simultaneous diagnosis and treatment. Hysteroscopic findings are the basis for most classification systems [29,42-47]. (See 'Classification' below.)

Adhesions may arise from the endometrium, myometrium, or connective tissue. They vary in size from thin and fragile to thick and dense, with the ends broader than the middle. They may occur at the margins of the endometrial cavity or diffusely; in severe cases, they completely obliterate the cavity. Marginal adhesions may appear crescent-shaped or like a curtain. Mucosal adhesions are the same color as the endometrium and fragile, whereas fibrous adhesions are pale and strong. IUAs due to tuberculosis tend to give the endometrial cavity a honeycomb appearance.

Hysteroscopy, with lysis of adhesions as indicated, can be performed in an office or operating room setting [48]. This allows diagnosis and treatment in a single procedure and decreases the probability of trauma to the surrounding endometrium. (See "Overview of hysteroscopy".)

Classification — Hysteroscopic findings are the basis for most classification systems [29,42-47]. While several societies endorse using a classification system because the prognosis is correlated with disease severity, at least one review concluded that the lack of trials comparing the various systems prevents the endorsement of any one system [48]. A summary of the various systems is presented in the table (table 3).

Two of the more commonly used systems are from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM, previously the American Fertility Society) and the European Society for Hysteroscopy. [3,29]. The ASRM system consists of three stages of disease, based upon the extent of cavity involvement of the uterine cavity (<1/3, 1/3 to 2/3, >2/3), the type of adhesion seen at the time of hysteroscopy (filmy, filmy and dense, dense), and the patient's menstrual pattern (normal, hypomenorrhea, amenorrhea) (figure 2) [29]. The European Society for Hysteroscopy system grades adhesions based on the operator's ability to disrupt them with the hysteroscope and visualize the tubal ostia as well as the amount of scarring of the uterine cavity (table 4) [3].

Imaging studies — SIS (image 1), hysterosalpingogram (HSG) (image 2), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have limited roles in the diagnosis of IUAs [49]. While these imaging studies can detect adhesions, they do not provide complete information about the extent and appearance of adhesions or the condition of the endometrium compared with hysteroscopy [4]. These studies may help the practitioner decide whether or not to perform hysteroscopy and, based on the surgeon's skill and available equipment, the appropriate setting in which to perform hysteroscopy with surgical correction (ie, office setting, outpatient operating room, or hospital-based operating room). (See 'Hysteroscopy' above.)

Studies of the performance of these tests for detecting IUAs include:

In a systematic review of 20 studies comparing SIS with hysteroscopy for the detection of IUAs, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of SIS were 0.82 and 0.99 (95% CIs 0.65-0.93 and 0.98-1.00, respectively) [40]. The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 34.58 (95% CI 16.68-71.70) and 0.36 (95% CI 0.22-0.58).

In a prospective study of 65 infertile women that compared HSG, SIS, and transvaginal ultrasonography (TVUS) with hysteroscopy, HSG and SIS were equally sensitive for diagnosing IUAs (both detected 3 of 4 cases, sensitivity 75 percent) [50]. TVUS alone appeared to have limited usefulness in this series (detected 0 of 4 cases).

A retrospective study of 78 women that used hysteroscopy as the reference standard reported that HSG had a sensitivity of 81.2 percent and specificity of 80.4 percent for detecting IUAs [51].

Advantages of SIS compared with HSG are that it does not involve radiation and some clinicians are able to perform the study in an office setting. HSG, on the other hand, must be performed in a radiology suite. The advantage of HSG is the ability to evaluate tubal patency, if this is indicated, although newer techniques for SIS that involve infusion of a water/air combination may improve assessment of tubal patency with SIS [52].

Pelvic ultrasound alone is not generally a useful test to assess this condition, although adhesions may be detected by highly experienced ultrasonographers [53,54]. A thin and irregular endometrium (sometimes referred to as "skip lesions") may represent IUAs [55]. MRI has been used for women with cervical stenosis that prevents hysteroscopy, HSG, or SIS, but data on this technique are mainly limited to case studies [39,56-58].

DIAGNOSIS — Direct visualization of IUAs with hysteroscopy is the gold standard for the diagnosis [42,43,48,50]. While imaging studies such as hysterosalpingography (HSG) and saline infusion sonohysterography (SIS) can detect adhesions, the sensitivity is lower compared with hysteroscopy, and therefore negative imaging studies cannot exclude adhesions [50]. In a prospective study of 65 infertile women comparing different imaging techniques with hysteroscopy as the standard, both HSG and SIS had a 75 percent sensitivity for the detection of IUAs and positive predictive values of 50 and 43 percent, respectively [50]. (See 'Imaging studies' above.)

DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS — The differential diagnosis of IUAs depends upon the presenting symptoms.

For women with amenorrhea or hypomenorrhea, the patient should be evaluated for an endocrine etiology. However, as part of this evaluation, if an estrogen/progestin withdrawal test does not result in bleeding, then IUAs, a cervical or uterine anomaly, or cervical stenosis are the likely etiologies. Even in the setting of a positive withdrawal test, IUAs should be considered in the differential diagnosis of hypomenorrhea, especially in women with infertility. (See 'Estrogen/progestin withdrawal test' above and "Congenital uterine anomalies: Clinical manifestations and diagnosis" and "Benign cervical lesions and congenital anomalies of the cervix" and "Evaluation and management of secondary amenorrhea".)

Cervical stenosis can frequently be differentiated from IUA by history, as cervical stenosis is often associated with cyclic pain that results from obstructed menstrual flow. As noted above, a failed attempt to pass an instrument (eg, cervical dilator or hysteroscope) through the external or internal cervical os may indicate cervical stenosis, but blind exploration of the cervical canal is not recommended in the office. Ultrasound guidance during cervical dilation or hysteroscopy with a 3 or 5 mm hysteroscopy without any prior dilation can directly visualize cervical stenosis and, once through the stenotic cervix, also evaluate the endometrial cavity.

Uterine anomalies, such as a uterine septum, may also result in abnormal uterine bleeding, infertility, or recurrent pregnancy loss. However, the hysteroscopic appearance is significantly different. A uterine septum is located in the midline fundus and retracts with incision, while adhesions are rarely symmetrical and do not retract with incision, and thus require excision for complete removal. (See "Congenital uterine anomalies: Clinical manifestations and diagnosis", section on 'Septate or subseptate uterus'.)

For women with infertility or recurrent pregnancy loss, there are many potential etiologies. The evaluation for these conditions typically includes hysteroscopy, which would identify IUAs. (See "Evaluation of female infertility" and "Recurrent pregnancy loss: Evaluation".)

SOCIETY GUIDELINE LINKS — Links to society and government-sponsored guidelines from selected countries and regions around the world are provided separately. (See "Society guideline links: Hysteroscopy".)

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Intrauterine adhesions (IUAs), or intrauterine synechiae, is a condition in which scar tissue develops within the uterine cavity. IUAs accompanied by symptoms (eg, infertility, amenorrhea) is also referred to as Asherman syndrome. (See 'Definition and terminology' above.)

The prevalence of IUAs is difficult to establish because the condition is rare, can be asymptomatic, and is not typically assessed for in a prospective fashion. Estimates of the prevalence range from 1.5 percent as an incidental finding at hysterosalpingogram (HSG) to 21.5 percent of women with a history of postpartum uterine curettage. (See 'Epidemiology' above.)

IUAs appear to result from trauma to the basalis layer of the endometrium (figure 1). The basalis layer appears to be most susceptible to damage in the first four postpartum or postabortal weeks. Trauma typically results from intrauterine procedures such as dilation and curettage, although inflammation, infection, and uterine compression sutures can play a role. (See 'Etiology and risk factors' above.)

Clinical manifestations of severe intrauterine adhesive disease include menstrual irregularities (amenorrhea, hypomenorrhea), infertility, cyclic pain, recurrent pregnancy loss, and abnormal placentation. IUAs can also be an incidental finding in an otherwise asymptomatic women. (See 'Clinical presentation' above.)

The diagnosis of IUAs is based upon visualization of IUAs directly by hysteroscopy. Imaging studies such as HSG or saline infusion sonohysterogram can detect adhesions, but the sensitivity is lower compared with hysteroscopy and therefore a negative imaging study does not exclude adhesions. (See 'Diagnosis' above.)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT — The editorial staff at UpToDate would like to acknowledge Yanett Anaya, MD, who contributed to an earlier version of this topic review.

REFERENCES

  1. ASHERMAN JG. Traumatic intra-uterine adhesions. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp 1950; 57:892.
  2. ASHERMAN JG. Amenorrhoea traumatica (atretica). J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp 1948; 55:23.
  3. Deans R, Abbott J. Review of intrauterine adhesions. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2010; 17:555.
  4. Salazar CA, Isaacson K, Morris S. A comprehensive review of Asherman's syndrome: causes, symptoms and treatment options. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2017; 29:249.
  5. Hooker AB, Lemmers M, Thurkow AL, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of intrauterine adhesions after miscarriage: prevalence, risk factors and long-term reproductive outcome. Hum Reprod Update 2014; 20:262.
  6. March CM. Asherman's syndrome. Semin Reprod Med 2011; 29:83.
  7. Lv H, Nan Z, Jiang P, et al. Vascular endothelial growth factor 165 inhibits pro-fibrotic differentiation of stromal cells via the DLL4/Notch4/smad7 pathway. Cell Death Dis 2019; 10:681.
  8. Chen Y, Chang Y, Yao S. Role of angiogenesis in endometrial repair of patients with severe intrauterine adhesion. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 2013; 6:1343.
  9. Yu D, Li TC, Xia E, et al. Factors affecting reproductive outcome of hysteroscopic adhesiolysis for Asherman's syndrome. Fertil Steril 2008; 89:715.
  10. Touboul C, Fernandez H, Deffieux X, et al. Uterine synechiae after bipolar hysteroscopic resection of submucosal myomas in patients with infertility. Fertil Steril 2009; 92:1690.
  11. Yu X, Yuhan L, Dongmei S, et al. The incidence of post-operative adhesion following transection of uterine septum: a cohort study comparing three different adjuvant therapies. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016; 201:61.
  12. Gilman AR, Dewar KM, Rhone SA, Fluker MR. Intrauterine Adhesions Following Miscarriage: Look and Learn. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2016; 38:453.
  13. Hooker A, Fraenk D, Brölmann H, Huirne J. Prevalence of intrauterine adhesions after termination of pregnancy: a systematic review. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2016; 21:329.
  14. Smorgick N, Barel O, Fuchs N, et al. Hysteroscopic management of retained products of conception: meta-analysis and literature review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014; 173:19.
  15. Hooker AB, Aydin H, Brölmann HA, Huirne JA. Long-term complications and reproductive outcome after the management of retained products of conception: a systematic review. Fertil Steril 2016; 105:156.
  16. Barel O, Krakov A, Pansky M, et al. Intrauterine adhesions after hysteroscopic treatment for retained products of conception: what are the risk factors? Fertil Steril 2015; 103:775.
  17. Bhandari S, Ganguly I, Agarwal P, et al. Effect of myomectomy on endometrial cavity: A prospective study of 51 cases. J Hum Reprod Sci 2016; 9:107.
  18. Adoni A, Palti Z, Milwidsky A, Dolberg M. The incidence of intrauterine adhesions following spontaneous abortion. Int J Fertil 1982; 27:117.
  19. ERIKSEN J, KAESTEL C. The incidence of uterine atresia after post-partum curettage. A follow-up examination of 141 patients. Dan Med Bull 1960; 7:50.
  20. March CM. Management of Asherman's syndrome. Reprod Biomed Online 2011; 23:63.
  21. Al-Inany H. Intrauterine adhesions. An update. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2001; 80:986.
  22. Di Spiezio Sardo A, Mazzon I, Bramante S, et al. Hysteroscopic myomectomy: a comprehensive review of surgical techniques. Hum Reprod Update 2008; 14:101.
  23. Taskin O, Sadik S, Onoglu A, et al. Role of endometrial suppression on the frequency of intrauterine adhesions after resectoscopic surgery. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 2000; 7:351.
  24. Yang JH, Chen MJ, Wu MY, et al. Office hysteroscopic early lysis of intrauterine adhesion after transcervical resection of multiple apposing submucous myomas. Fertil Steril 2008; 89:1254.
  25. Mazzon I, Favilli A, Cocco P, et al. Does cold loop hysteroscopic myomectomy reduce intrauterine adhesions? A retrospective study. Fertil Steril 2014; 101:294.
  26. Kjer JJ. Asherman syndrome in a Danish population. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2014; 93:425.
  27. Chen Y, Liu L, Luo Y, et al. Prevalence and Impact of Chronic Endometritis in Patients With Intrauterine Adhesions: A Prospective Cohort Study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017; 24:74.
  28. Polishuk WZ, Anteby SO, Weinstein D. Puerperal endometritis and intrauterine adhesions. Int Surg 1975; 60:418.
  29. The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, müllerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril 1988; 49:944.
  30. Sharma JB, Roy KK, Pushparaj M, et al. Genital tuberculosis: an important cause of Asherman's syndrome in India. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2008; 277:37.
  31. Bukulmez O, Yarali H, Gurgan T. Total corporal synechiae due to tuberculosis carry a very poor prognosis following hysteroscopic synechialysis. Hum Reprod 1999; 14:1960.
  32. Poujade O, Grossetti A, Mougel L, et al. Risk of synechiae following uterine compression sutures in the management of major postpartum haemorrhage. BJOG 2011; 118:433.
  33. Rasheed SM, Amin MM, Abd Ellah AH, et al. Reproductive performance after conservative surgical treatment of postpartum hemorrhage. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2014; 124:248.
  34. Rathat G, Do Trinh P, Mercier G, et al. Synechia after uterine compression sutures. Fertil Steril 2011; 95:405.
  35. Ibrahim MI, Raafat TA, Ellaithy MI, Aly RT. Risk of postpartum uterine synechiae following uterine compression suturing during postpartum haemorrhage. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2013; 53:37.
  36. Hanstede MM, van der Meij E, Goedemans L, Emanuel MH. Results of centralized Asherman surgery, 2003-2013. Fertil Steril 2015; 104:1561.
  37. Schenker JG, Margalioth EJ. Intrauterine adhesions: an updated appraisal. Fertil Steril 1982; 37:593.
  38. Fraser IS, Critchley HO, Munro MG, Broder M. Can we achieve international agreement on terminologies and definitions used to describe abnormalities of menstrual bleeding? Hum Reprod 2007; 22:635.
  39. Yu D, Wong YM, Cheong Y, et al. Asherman syndrome--one century later. Fertil Steril 2008; 89:759.
  40. Seshadri S, El-Toukhy T, Douiri A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of saline infusion sonography in the evaluation of uterine cavity abnormalities prior to assisted reproductive techniques: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Hum Reprod Update 2015; 21:262.
  41. Tal R, Lawal T, Granger E, et al. Genital tuberculosis screening at an academic fertility center in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 223:737.e1.
  42. March CM, Israel R, March AD. Hysteroscopic management of intrauterine adhesions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1978; 130:653.
  43. Valle RF, Sciarra JJ. Intrauterine adhesions: hysteroscopic diagnosis, classification, treatment, and reproductive outcome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988; 158:1459.
  44. Nasr AL, Al-Inany HG, Thabet SM, Aboulghar M. A clinicohysteroscopic scoring system of intrauterine adhesions. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2000; 50:178.
  45. Hamou J, Salat-Baroux J, Siegler AM. Diagnosis and treatment of intrauterine adhesions by microhysteroscopy. Fertil Steril 1983; 39:321.
  46. Wamsteker K, De Blok SJ. Diagnostic hysteroscopy: Technique and documentation. In: Endoscopic surgery for gynecologists, Sutton C, Diamon M (Eds), Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, New York 1995. p.263.
  47. Donnez J, Nisolle M. Hysteroscopic lysis of intrauterine adhesions (Asherman Syndrome). In: Atlas of Laser Operative Laparoscopy and Hysteroscopy, Donnez J (Ed), Press-Parthenon, New York 1994. p.305.
  48. AAGL Elevating Gynecologic Surgery. AAGL Practice Report: Practice Guidelines on Intrauterine Adhesions Developed in Collaboration With the European Society of Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE). J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2017; 24:695.
  49. Bekiesinska-Figatowska M. Magnetic resonance imaging of the female pelvis after Cesarean section: a pictorial review. Insights Imaging 2020; 11:75.
  50. Soares SR, Barbosa dos Reis MM, Camargos AF. Diagnostic accuracy of sonohysterography, transvaginal sonography, and hysterosalpingography in patients with uterine cavity diseases. Fertil Steril 2000; 73:406.
  51. Roma Dalfó A, Ubeda B, Ubeda A, et al. Diagnostic value of hysterosalpingography in the detection of intrauterine abnormalities: a comparison with hysteroscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004; 183:1405.
  52. Luciano DE, Exacoustos C, Johns DA, Luciano AA. Can hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography replace hysterosalpingography in confirming tubal blockage after hysteroscopic sterilization and in the evaluation of the uterus and tubes in infertile patients? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 204:79.e1.
  53. Shalev J, Meizner I, Bar-Hava I, et al. Predictive value of transvaginal sonography performed before routine diagnostic hysteroscopy for evaluation of infertility. Fertil Steril 2000; 73:412.
  54. Fedele L, Bianchi S, Dorta M, Vignali M. Intrauterine adhesions: detection with transvaginal US. Radiology 1996; 199:757.
  55. Amin TN, Saridogan E, Jurkovic D. Ultrasound and intrauterine adhesions: a novel structured approach to diagnosis and management. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015; 46:131.
  56. Bacelar AC, Wilcock D, Powell M, Worthington BS. The value of MRI in the assessment of traumatic intra-uterine adhesions (Asherman's syndrome). Clin Radiol 1995; 50:80.
  57. Dykes TA, Isler RJ, McLean AC. MR imaging of Asherman syndrome: total endometrial obliteration. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1991; 15:858.
  58. Letterie GS, Haggerty MF. Magnetic resonance imaging of intrauterine synechiae. Gynecol Obstet Invest 1994; 37:66.
Topic 3285 Version 29.0

References

1 : Traumatic intra-uterine adhesions.

2 : Amenorrhoea traumatica (atretica).

3 : Review of intrauterine adhesions.

4 : A comprehensive review of Asherman's syndrome: causes, symptoms and treatment options.

5 : Systematic review and meta-analysis of intrauterine adhesions after miscarriage: prevalence, risk factors and long-term reproductive outcome.

6 : Asherman's syndrome.

7 : Vascular endothelial growth factor 165 inhibits pro-fibrotic differentiation of stromal cells via the DLL4/Notch4/smad7 pathway.

8 : Role of angiogenesis in endometrial repair of patients with severe intrauterine adhesion.

9 : Factors affecting reproductive outcome of hysteroscopic adhesiolysis for Asherman's syndrome.

10 : Uterine synechiae after bipolar hysteroscopic resection of submucosal myomas in patients with infertility.

11 : The incidence of post-operative adhesion following transection of uterine septum: a cohort study comparing three different adjuvant therapies.

12 : Intrauterine Adhesions Following Miscarriage: Look and Learn.

13 : Prevalence of intrauterine adhesions after termination of pregnancy: a systematic review.

14 : Hysteroscopic management of retained products of conception: meta-analysis and literature review.

15 : Long-term complications and reproductive outcome after the management of retained products of conception: a systematic review.

16 : Intrauterine adhesions after hysteroscopic treatment for retained products of conception: what are the risk factors?

17 : Effect of myomectomy on endometrial cavity: A prospective study of 51 cases.

18 : The incidence of intrauterine adhesions following spontaneous abortion.

19 : The incidence of uterine atresia after post-partum curettage. A follow-up examination of 141 patients.

20 : Management of Asherman's syndrome.

21 : Intrauterine adhesions. An update.

22 : Hysteroscopic myomectomy: a comprehensive review of surgical techniques.

23 : Role of endometrial suppression on the frequency of intrauterine adhesions after resectoscopic surgery.

24 : Office hysteroscopic early lysis of intrauterine adhesion after transcervical resection of multiple apposing submucous myomas.

25 : Does cold loop hysteroscopic myomectomy reduce intrauterine adhesions? A retrospective study.

26 : Asherman syndrome in a Danish population.

27 : Prevalence and Impact of Chronic Endometritis in Patients With Intrauterine Adhesions: A Prospective Cohort Study.

28 : Puerperal endometritis and intrauterine adhesions.

29 : The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, müllerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions.

30 : Genital tuberculosis: an important cause of Asherman's syndrome in India.

31 : Total corporal synechiae due to tuberculosis carry a very poor prognosis following hysteroscopic synechialysis.

32 : Risk of synechiae following uterine compression sutures in the management of major postpartum haemorrhage.

33 : Reproductive performance after conservative surgical treatment of postpartum hemorrhage.

34 : Synechia after uterine compression sutures.

35 : Risk of postpartum uterine synechiae following uterine compression suturing during postpartum haemorrhage.

36 : Results of centralized Asherman surgery, 2003-2013.

37 : Intrauterine adhesions: an updated appraisal.

38 : Can we achieve international agreement on terminologies and definitions used to describe abnormalities of menstrual bleeding?

39 : Asherman syndrome--one century later.

40 : Diagnostic accuracy of saline infusion sonography in the evaluation of uterine cavity abnormalities prior to assisted reproductive techniques: a systematic review and meta-analyses.

41 : Genital tuberculosis screening at an academic fertility center in the United States.

42 : Hysteroscopic management of intrauterine adhesions.

43 : Intrauterine adhesions: hysteroscopic diagnosis, classification, treatment, and reproductive outcome.

44 : A clinicohysteroscopic scoring system of intrauterine adhesions.

45 : Diagnosis and treatment of intrauterine adhesions by microhysteroscopy.

46 : Diagnosis and treatment of intrauterine adhesions by microhysteroscopy.

47 : Diagnosis and treatment of intrauterine adhesions by microhysteroscopy.

48 : AAGL Practice Report: Practice Guidelines on Intrauterine Adhesions Developed in Collaboration With the European Society of Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE).

49 : Magnetic resonance imaging of the female pelvis after Cesarean section: a pictorial review.

50 : Diagnostic accuracy of sonohysterography, transvaginal sonography, and hysterosalpingography in patients with uterine cavity diseases.

51 : Diagnostic value of hysterosalpingography in the detection of intrauterine abnormalities: a comparison with hysteroscopy.

52 : Can hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography replace hysterosalpingography in confirming tubal blockage after hysteroscopic sterilization and in the evaluation of the uterus and tubes in infertile patients?

53 : Predictive value of transvaginal sonography performed before routine diagnostic hysteroscopy for evaluation of infertility.

54 : Intrauterine adhesions: detection with transvaginal US.

55 : Ultrasound and intrauterine adhesions: a novel structured approach to diagnosis and management.

56 : The value of MRI in the assessment of traumatic intra-uterine adhesions (Asherman's syndrome).

57 : MR imaging of Asherman syndrome: total endometrial obliteration.

58 : Magnetic resonance imaging of intrauterine synechiae.