Congenital Disorders of genital organs with menstrual Blood outflow Defect: Diagnostics, Treatment and Prevention of Complications
https://doi.org/10.15690/pf.v16i6.2072
Abstract
There is significant growth in numbers of patients with congenital disorders of various organs and systems in recent decades. The complexity of this problem is defined by difficulties in diagnostics especially in cases of associative disorders which leads to untimely treatment and numerous complications. This article covers features of management of female patients with malformations of genital organs with menstrual blood outflow defect.
About the Authors
Zalina K. Batyrova
National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology named after Academician V.I. Kulakov
Russian Federation
Moscow
Russian Federation
Moscow
E. V. Uvarova
National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology named after Academician V.I. Kulakov;
Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University
Russian Federation
Moscow
Russian Federation
Moscow
Zaira Kh. Kumykova
National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology named after Academician V.I. Kulakov
Russian Federation
Moscow
Russian Federation
Moscow
Vladimir D. Chuprynin
National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology named after Academician V.I. Kulakov
Russian Federation
Moscow
Russian Federation
Moscow
Diana A. Kruglyak
National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology named after Academician V.I. Kulakov
Russian Federation
Moscow
Russian Federation
Moscow
References
1. Krutova VA, Naumova NV, Kotlova TA, et al. An algorithm for diagnostics and treatment of girls with congenital malformations of the reproductive system. Pediatric and adolescent reproductive health. 2015;(1):30–36. (In Russ).
2. Grimbizis GF, Camus M, Tarlatzis BC, et al. Clinical implications of uterine malformations and hysteroscopic treatment results. Hum Reprod Update. 2001;7(2):161–174. doi: 10.1093/humupd/7.2.161.
3. Buralkina NA, Uvarova EV. Sovremennyye predstavleniya o reproduktivnom zdorov’ye devochek (obzor literatury). Pediatric and adolescent reproductive health. 2010;(2):12–31. (In Russ).
4. Adamyan LV, Kurilo LF, Okulov AB, et al. Female reproductive organs’ anomalies: identification and classification (a review). Modern reproductive technologies. 2010;16(2):7–15. (In Russ).
5. 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;14(5):415–429. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmn018.
6. Baisova BI, et al. Gynecology. Uchebnik. Ed by G.M. Savel’yeva, V.G. Breusenko. 4th revised and updated. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media; 2012. 432 р. (In Russ).
7. Abubakirov AN, Adamyan LV, Aziev OV, et al. Gynecology. Natsional’noye rukovodstvo. 2nd revised and updated. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media; 2017. 1007 р. (In Russ)
8. Mckusick VA, Bauer R, Koop CE, Scott RB. Hydrometrocolpos as a simply inherited malformation. JAMA. 1964;189:813–816. doi: 10.4103/0971-3026.116573.
9. Chitayat D, Hahm SY, Marion RW, et al. Further delineation of the McKusick-Kaufman hydrometrocolpos-polydactyly syndrome. Am J Dis Child. 1987;141(10):1133–1136. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.1987.04460100111042.
10. Beales PL, Warner AM, Hitman GA, et al. Bardet-Biedl syndrome: a molecular and phenotypic study of 18 families. J Med Genet. 1997;34(2):92–98. doi: 10.1136/jmg.34.2.92.
11. Behera M, Couchman G, Walmer D, Price TM. Mullerian agenesis and thrombocytopenia absent radius syndrome: a case report and review of syndromes associated with mullerian agenesis. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2005;60(7):453–461. doi: 10.1097/01.ogx.0000165265.01778.55.
12. Wang GH, Zhu L, Liu AM, et al. Сlinical characteristicsof patients who underwent surgeryfor genital tract malformationsat peking union medical college hospitalacross 31 years. Chin Med J (Engl). 2016;129(20):2441–2444. doi: 10.4103/0366-6999.191762.
13. Kozlova SI, Demikova NS. Nasledstvennyye sindromy i mediko-geneticheskoye konsul’tirovaniye: atlasspravochnik. Moscow: Tovarishchestvo nauch. izd. KMK: Avt. akad.; 2007. 447 р. (In Russ).
14. Laganà AS, Garzon S, Raffaelli R, et al. Vaginal stenosis after cervical cancer treatments: challenges for reconstructive surgery. J Invest Surg. 2019;1–2. doi: 10.1080/08941939.2019.1695987.
15. Friedman MA, Aguilar L, Heyward Q, et al. Screening for mullerian anomalies in patients with unilateral renal agenesis: leveraging early detection to prevent complications. J Pediatr Urol. 2018;14(2):144– 149. doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2018.01.011.
16. Amies Oelschlager AM, Kirby A, Breech L. Evaluation and managementofvaginoplastycomplications. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2017;29(5):316–321. doi: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000391.
17. Lima M, Ruggeri G, Randi B, et al. Vaginal replacement in the pediatric age group: a 34-year experience of intestinal vaginoplasty in children and young girls. J Pediatr Surg. 2010;45(10):2087– 2091. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2010.05.016.
18. Moriya K, Higashiyama H, Tanaka H, et al. Long-term outcomes of vaginoplasty with the bilateral labioscrotal flap. J Urol. 2009;182(4 Suppl):1876–1881. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.02.090.
19. Buncamper M, van der Sluis W, van der Pas R, et al. Surgical outcomes after penile inversion vaginoplasty: a retrospective study of 475 transgender women. Plastic Reconstr Surg. 2016;138(5):999– 1007. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000002684.
20. Bouman MB, van Zeijl MC, Buncamper ME, et al. Intestinal vaginoplasty revisited: a review of surgical techniques. J Sex Med. 2014;11(7):1835–1847. doi: 10.1111/jsm.12538.
21. Kisku S, Varghese L, Kekre A, et al. Bowel vaginoplasty in children and young women: an institutional experience with 55 patients. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(10):1441–1448. doi: 10.1007/s00192-015-2728-3.
22. Lin W, Chang C, Shen Y, Tsai H. Use of autologous buccal mucosa for vaginoplasty: a study of eight cases. Hum Repod. 2003;18(3):604–607. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deg095.
23. Li F, Xu Y, Zhou C, et al. Long-term outcomes of vaginoplasty with autologousbuccalmicromucosa. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(5):951– 956. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000161.
24. Oakes M, Beck S, Smith Y, et al. Augmentation vaginoplasty of colonic neovagina stricture using oral mucosa graft. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2010;23(1):e39–e42. doi: 10.1016/j.jpag.2009.03.006.
25. Ahmad G, Duffy JM, Farquhar C, et al. Barrier agents for adhesion prevention after gynaecological surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(2):CD000475. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000475.pub2.
26. Kumar S, Wong PF, Leaper DJ. Intra-peritoneal prophylactic agents for preventing adhesions and adhesive intestinal obstruction after non-gynaecological abdominal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(1):CD005080. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005080.pub2.
27. Tikhomirov AL, Gevorkyan MA, Sarsania SI. The risk of postoperative adhesions in gynecology and their prevention. Modern reproductive technologies. 2016;22(6):66–73. (In Russ). doi: 10.17116/repro201622666-73.
28. Samartsev VA, Kuznetsova MV, Gavrilov VA, et al. Anticommissural barriers in abdominal surgery: up-to-date state of problem. Permskiy meditsinskiy zhurnal. 2017;34(2):87–93. (In Russ).
Review
For citations:
Batyrova Z.K., Uvarova E.V., Kumykova Z.Kh., Chuprynin V.D., Kruglyak D.A. Congenital Disorders of genital organs with menstrual Blood outflow Defect: Diagnostics, Treatment and Prevention of Complications. Pediatric pharmacology. 2019;16(6):349-352. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15690/pf.v16i6.2072
Views:
1238
Email this article 