Skip to main content
Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy logoLink to Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy
. 2022 Feb 14;11(1):7–16. doi: 10.4103/GMIT.GMIT_157_20

Successful Management of a Noncommunicating Rudimentary Uterine Horn Pregnancy by Laparoscopic Surgery: A Case Report and Literature Review

Wataru Isono 1,*, Akira Tsuchiya 1, Michiko Honda 1, Ako Saito 1, Hiroko Tsuchiya 1, Reiko Matsuyama 1, Akihisa Fujimoto 1, Osamu Nishii 1
PMCID: PMC8926057  PMID: 35310117

Abstract

Pregnancy in a noncommunicating rudimentary horn is extremely rare but can cause serious clinical complications, such as uterine rupture. The standard treatment is excision of the rudimentary horn, and recently, in some cases, laparoscopic resection has been performed in the first trimester of gestation. Herein, we present a case of noncommunicating rudimentary horn pregnancy (NCRHP), which was diagnosed by magnetic resonance imaging at 6 weeks of gestation and treated by laparoscopic surgery. However, we have also found some rare cases in which patients could obtain live newborn babies. Since management is affected by the different levels of obstetric medical care and diagnostic tools, we also performed a review and analysis of NCRHP. A PubMed search yielded 103 cases reported in the English literature. Correct diagnosis and laparoscopic treatment were achieved more frequently in developed countries, especially in the first trimester of gestation. On the other hand, symptoms, including abdominal pain and hypovolemic shock, tended to occur in the second trimester of gestation. This period was also found to be a risk factor for uterine rupture. Among 18 patients at the third trimester of gestation, 13 obtained live neonatal infants. Therefore, detailed information about this disease is crucial for proper treatments.

Keywords: Country, gestational age, laparoscopic surgery, noncommunicating rudimentary horn pregnancy, uterine rupture

INTRODUCTION

A unicornuate uterus with a rudimentary horn results from arrested development of one of the Müllerian ducts,[1] and the great majority of rudimentary horns do not communicate with the cavity.[2,3,4] Moreover, the incidence of noncommunicating rudimentary horn pregnancy (NCRHP) is extremely rare and is estimated at 1:76,000–1:160,000 pregnancies,[5,6,7,8,9] since fertilization is thought to occur via intraperitoneal transmigration of sperm or a fertilized ovum.[2] In a significant number of cases, a correct diagnosis can be achieved only after uterine rupture with life-threatening heavy bleeding[5,9] because uterine rupture usually occurs before the third trimester of pregnancy in NCRHP.[5,10] To treat these cases, emergency laparotomy is performed. Apart from detecting hypovolemic shock,[11,12,13,14,15,16,17] patients frequently have abdominal pain,[7,11,13,14,15,16,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43] but some reports have indicated that only 8% of rudimentary horn pregnancies (RHPs) are diagnosed before the symptoms appear.[44] Sufficient knowledge seems necessary to detect NCRHP during early obstetric screening. Especially when detecting NCRHP in the first trimester of pregnancy, this disease can be managed by minimally invasive laparoscopic surgeries.[10,21,27,31,33,41,43,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55] In some cases, laparoscopic surgeries are performed even in the second trimester of gestation.[10,43] Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) seems to be particularly important for performing a prompt and correct diagnosis before laparoscopic treatment.[56] However, a large review, which collected RHPs in the 20th century, found that in 6.5% of all RHP cases, patients could obtain live newborn babies.[5] In addition, in the 21st century, there are some cases in which patients could achieve live newborn babies by cesarean section,[11,23,26,35,44,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64] although those situations may be extremely rare in the current developed countries. Thus, various situations should be considered when encountering NCRHP because its management would be affected by the different levels of obstetric medical care and diagnostic tools derived from individual countries, communities, or institutions. For this reason, a comprehensive review of separate case reports in the 21st century would be useful. We compared the actual management of our case to the results of the review. Herein is a case report of NCRHP diagnosed at 6 weeks of gestation and treated completely by laparoscopic surgery, along with a review of the literature reporting NCRHP. The purpose of this study was to evaluate data on patient characteristics, presenting the symptoms, diagnostic methods, and therapeutic management of RHP for the periods of 2000–2020.

METHODS

Data collection

In the management of our patient with NCRHP, several published cases were referenced. After treatment, we performed a systematic review reporting NCRHP cases to identify the characteristics and assess our management. A PubMed search was performed on November 30, 2020, using the two combinations of terms included in titles/abstracts: “noncommunicating and pregnancy” or “noncommunicating and pregnancy.” This search yielded 110 papers, and among them, we obtained 81 English-language references reporting noncommunicating RHPs. Nine reports were excluded: two reports due to the presence of other uterine abnormalities, three reports due to the presence of tubal pregnancy, and four reports due to insufficient data. Finally, 72 reports were selected for our analysis.[7,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82] Most of the articles were case reports, and we found 103 cases published from January 2000 to November 2020. Two reviewers (W.I. and A.T.) independently reviewed all articles. We extracted some epidemiologic factors based on the following seven classifications: (1) gestational age, (2) patient characteristics, (3) symptoms, (4) diagnostic methods, (5) treatment methods, (6) diagnosis, and (7) blood loss. Since these clinical factors were extracted from the description of published reports, the data were partly insufficient in some cases.

Statistical analysis

First, we divided 103 patients into two groups by developed countries and other countries or into three groups by gestational age, including the first trimester (0–13 weeks), second trimester (14–26 weeks), and third trimester (27–40 weeks). Among these two or three groups, we compared the ratio of patients with each clinical factor. To detect differences, a Chi-square test was performed, and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Second, we assessed the influence of the following ten clinical factors on the possibility of uterine rupture: (1) “developed country,” defined referring to the definition of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; (2) “over 30 years old;” (3) “multiparity;” (4) “past abortion history;” (5) “abdominal pain”, defined as patients with symptoms of abdominal pain; (6) “hypovolemic shock”, defined as patients who had abnormal vital signs caused by bleeding; (7) “vaginal bleeding,” defined as patients with symptoms of vaginal bleeding; (8) “vomiting”, defined as patients with symptoms of vomiting; (9) “right-sided NCRHP,” defined as patients who had right-sided NCRHP; and (10) “second trimester,” defined referring to the classification of gestational age. To control for confounding factors, we divided the patients into two groups according to the presence or absence of each factor and performed a multivariate logistic regression analysis. These statistical analyses were performed using JMP version 12 for Windows (SAS Institute, Inc., Tokyo, Japan). The number of patients with each factor, the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the occurrence of uterine rupture, and the P values were calculated. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Case report

An asymptomatic 30-year-old G1P0 female was referred to our hospital in the 6-week, 2-day period of gestation with a suspected diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy. She had received a diagnosis of an absent right kidney by abdominal computed tomography scan in 2010. Blood testing showed a beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-HCG) concentration of 25,250 IU/l with no abnormality, and vital signs were normal.

Transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) demonstrated an empty-appearing uterus [Figure 1a] and the presence of a 16.6 mm gestational sac with a clear yolk sac and no fetal heart beat near the right adnexa [Figure 1b and c]. However, unlike a typical tubal ectopic pregnancy, a thick myometrial wall surrounding the gestational sac was detected [Figure 1c-e]. Due to these findings, the patient was immediately hospitalized for pelvic MRI and operation planning. MRI, performed 2 days after hospitalization, showed an asymmetrical didelphys uterus, namely, type III Müllerian duct anomalies (MDA) classified by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, with an extremely thin right vaginal portion of the cervix [Figure 1f and g]. A pregnancy was detected in this right uterine horn. Three days after reaching this diagnosis, a fetal heart beat was detected by TVUS, and we recommended operative treatment to prevent the high risk of future uterine rupture.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Clinical images. (a) The dominant left uterine horn. (b) Gestational sac with a yolk sac was detected near the right adnexa. (c-e) The thick myometrium. (f-g) Magnetic resonance imaging images. Coronal view (f). Axial view (g). (h-l) Laparoscopic surgery images. The process of resecting the fibromuscular band tissue between the left hemi-uterus (arrow) and the right rudimentary horn (arrowhead) (h-j). The resected specimen was retrieved from the small hole of the vaginal wall (k). (l) The dominant uterine horn and normal bilateral ovaries. (m) Gestational sac-like tissue in the resected specimen

Two days after consent for the laparoscopic operation was obtained from the patient and her husband, we performed laparoscopic resection of the rudimentary horn of the uterus with the right fallopian tube. (Written informed consent was also obtained from the patient and her husband for publication of this case report.) During the operation, a noncommunicating rudimentary right horn and a right fallopian tube arising from this horn were grossly detected, and we diagnosed type II-B MDA [Figure 1h]. Bilateral ovaries and a left fallopian tube were connected in a normal fashion to the dominant left uterine horn. The pregnancy was located in the markedly swollen noncommunicating rudimentary right horn [Figure 1i]. Small pelvic endometriosis was also detected. The rudimentary horn was excised together with the right fallopian tube [Figure 1i and j], and this excised specimen was retrieved vaginally through a small incision of Douglas’ pouch [Figure 1k, l and m]. The postoperative recovery was uneventful, and the patient was discharged on the third postoperative day. The postoperative blood test showed a β-HCG concentration of 3,899 IU/l, and it became negative 3 weeks after the operation. Histological examination of the excised tissue confirmed a pregnancy inside a noncommunicating rudimentary uterine horn.

Patient characteristics

This review included 103 cases of NCRHP, and these cases included 38 cases with a first trimester of gestation, 47 cases with a second trimester of gestation, and 18 cases with a third trimester of gestation. Of the nine rare cases with multiple pregnancies, one patient had triplets, and eight patients had twins. In total, we extracted 28 factors related to this disease and collected the number of cases with each factor [Table 1], although the factors were not necessarily described in all reports. These cases were derived from 73 studies that were reported in 29 countries. Among them, 41 cases were derived from developed countries, and 62 cases were from other countries. Since in all cases, pregnancy was established spontaneously and no patient used infertility treatments, the patient age was relatively young, 26.1 ± 5.1 (range 16–39) years old. The main symptoms included abdominal pain (42.7% of all cases) and hypovolemic shock (10.7%), but many patients had no symptoms (40.8%). In these 103 cases, a correct diagnosis before surgery could be performed in 48 cases (46.6%), and uterine rupture occurred in 36 cases (35.0%). In most cases, the rudimentary horn was removed by laparotomic surgery, but 20 cases were treated laparoscopically. Almost all 20 cases with laparoscopic surgeries were performed in developed countries, and only 2 cases were treated laparoscopically in developing countries, both in India. These laparoscopic surgeries were mainly performed during the first trimester of gestation (18/20 cases), but two cases were performed during the second trimester. Similarly, among 16 cases with MRI performed for diagnosis, 13 were reported in developed countries. In all 16 cases, a correct diagnosis of NCRHP was achieved before surgery. However, we could detect no cases in which MRI was used during the third trimester of gestation, and all 16 cases were in the first (11 cases) or second (5 cases) trimesters. We found only one case in which the patient reached the third trimester of gestation in a developed country, and the other 17 cases were detected in another country [Table 2]. Among these 18 cases, we detected 13 cases in which patients could achieve live neonatal babies. After performing these general observations of 103 cases, we identified the possibility that both the diagnosis and treatment of NCRHP seemed to largely depend on the country and gestational age.

Table 1.

Ratio of each factor

Factors Number Ratio (%)
Gestational age
 First trimester 38 36.9
 Second trimester 47 45.6
 Third trimester 18 17.5
Patient characteristics
 Developed country 41 39.8
 Multiparity 44 42.7
 Past abortion history 30 29.1
 Past cesarean section history 10 9.7
 Past diagnosed uterine abnormality 7 6.8
 Multiple pregnancy 9 8.7
Symptoms
 Abdominal pain 44 42.7
 Hypovolemic shock 11 10.7
 Vaginal bleeding 8 7.8
 Vomiting 6 5.8
 No symptoms 42 40.8
Diagnostic methods
 MRI use 16 15.5
 3D ultrasound use 7 6.8
 Diagnostic laparoscopy 6 5.8
Treatment methods
 Laparoscopy 20 19.4
 Emergency surgery 17 16.5
 Pregnancy termination before surgery (1*) 25 24.3
Diagnosis
 Right-sided NCRHP 60 58.3
 Correct diagnosis 48 46.6
 Suspected intrauterine fetus 26 25.2
 Uterine rupture 36 35.0
 Pregnancy after the operation 10 9.7
 Urinary tract abnormality (2**) 3 2.9
Blood loss
 Massive blood loss 34 33.0
 Blood transfusion 23 22.3

*1: Two cases with surgical abortion, 9 cases with the injection of methotrexate, 1 case with the injection of potassium chloride, 13 cases with labor induction, **2: The urinary tract screening test was performed in 13 of the 103 cases. MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging, NCRHP: Noncommunicating rudimentary horn pregnancy

Table 2.

List of 18 cases in third trimesters

Reference Country Age P GW Main symptom Preoperative diagnosis Rupture Side Status Birth weight (g) APGAR
11 Turkey 24 2 38 No symptoms Placenta previa Left Live
11 Turkey 32 1 30 No symptoms Placenta previa, IUFD Right Dead
15 India 29 0 34 Abdominal pain Placenta previa Left Dead
15 India 24 1 34 No symptoms Uterine rupture Rupture Right Dead
17 India 31 1 29 Shock Ectopic pregnancy Rupture Right Dead 620
23 India 26 2 36 Abdominal pain Bicornuate, placenta previa Right Live 2500 5/7
26 Nepal 30 0 39 No symptoms Normal pregnancy Live 2600 Normal
35 India 23 0 36 Abdominal pain IUGR Left Live 1800 8/9
44 China 23 0 37 No symptoms Didelphys Right Live 2550 Normal
58 Cameroon 29 0 42 No symptoms Ectopic pregnancy Right Live 2300 0/10
59 India 24 0 37 Fetal distress Low lying placenta Rupture Right Live 2300 7/9
60 Nigeria 32 0 38 Vaginal bleeding Low lying placenta Left Live 2200 Normal
61 India 20 0 35 Preeclampsia Normal pregnancy (twin) Left Live 2700, 1900 Normal
62 Turkey 27 0 37 IUGR RHP Right Live 1370 7 (1 min)
63 India 25 2 37 IUGR Placenta previa Left Live 2700 9
64 Korea 27 0 34 IUGR IUGR Right Live 1670 5/8
68 Brazil 22 0 44 Fetal distress IUFD Right Dead
77 India 25 1 41 Fetal distress RHP Right Live 1600 Died on the 4th day

P: Para, GW: Gestational week, APGAR: Apgar score, IUFD: Intrauterine fetal death, RHP: Rudimentary horn pregnancy, IUGR: Intrauterine growth retardation

Country-specific differences

To detect country-specific factors affecting the diagnosis and treatment of NCRHP, we compared the frequency of 19 factors by dividing 103 cases into two groups, which were classified by developed countries and other countries [Figure 2]. Although there was no difference in the frequency of symptoms, we detected significant differences in the categories of gestational age, diagnosis, treatment, and complications. Remarkably, only one case with third trimester of gestation was detected in developed countries. The number of cases with “MRI use,” “correct diagnosis,” or “laparoscopic surgery” was significantly higher. On the other hand, in the other countries, we detected significantly higher numbers of cases with “suspected intrauterine fetus,” “emergency surgery,” “uterine rupture,” or “massive blood loss.” These results possibly indicated the presence of differences in diagnostic and treatment ability, especially in the first trimester of gestation.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Country-specific differences. Developed: Developed countries, Others: Countries other than developed countries, T: Total, Shock: Hypovolemic shock, Right-sided: Right-sided noncommunicating rudimentary horn pregnancy, Intrauterine fetus: Diagnosis of suspected intrauterine fetus, Termination: Pregnancy termination, Laparoscopy: Laparoscopic surgery. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01

Differences between three trimesters

Next, to detect the relationship between the three trimesters of gestation and patient characteristics, symptoms, and management of NCRHP, we compared the frequency of 17 factors by dividing 103 cases into three groups, which were classified by first, second, and third trimesters of gestation [Figure 2]. A clear reduction in frequency along with increased gestational age was detected for some factors, including “developed country,” “past abortion history,” “MRI use,” “correct diagnosis,” and “laparoscopic surgery.” Conversely, the frequencies of “suspected intrauterine fetus” and “emergency surgery” were higher in the third trimester. In the second trimester, we detected a high frequency of symptoms, including “abdominal pain” and “hypovolemic shock,” and adverse events, including “uterine rupture” and “massive blood loss.”

Influential factors of uterine rupture

Since the most severe adverse event of NCRHP was thought to be uterine rupture, which we actually detected in 36 out of 103 cases, we tried to detect the significant factors affecting the possibility of uterine rupture. For that purpose, we extracted the 11 representative factors that were predicted to have some influence and performed a multivariate analysis [Table 3]. According to the analysis, the following four factors affected the rate of uterine rupture: (1) “developed country” (OR = 0.13, P < 0.01); (2) “abdominal pain” (OR = 11.16, P < 0.01); (3) “shock” (OR = 25.38, P < 0.01); and (4) “second trimester” (OR = 8.84, P < 0.05). Remarkably, patients with a second trimester of gestation had a high possibility of uterine rupture (72.7%, 24/33 cases) in the other countries.

Table 3.

Influential factors of uterine rupture

Number OR (95% CI) P
Patient characteristics
 Developed country 41 0.13 (0.05-0.39) <0.01
 Over 30 years old 28 0.09 (0.02-0.42) NS
 Multiparity 44 1.33 (0.59-3.00) NS
 Past abortion history 30 0.36 (0.13-0.98) NS
Symptoms
 Abdominal pain 44 11.16 (4.25-29.31) <0.01
 Hypovolemic shock 11 25.38 (3.0.9-208.37) <0.01
 Vaginal bleeding 8 1.12 (0.25-5.00) NS
 Vomiting 6 4.06 (0.71-23.36) NS
Disease characteristics
 Right-sided NCRHP 60 0.84 (0.37-1.91) NS
 Second trimester 47 8.84 (3.42-22.83) <0.05

NS: Not significant, OR: Odds ratio, CI: Confidence interval, NCRHP: Noncommunicating rudimentary horn pregnancy

DISCUSSION

Since NCRHP is an extremely rare disease, it is difficult to understand its characteristics. This lack of knowledge may lead to the high possibility of a life-threatening condition, namely, rudimentary uterine horn rupture.[5,11,57] On the other hand, when a prompt and accurate diagnosis is achieved, NCRHP can be treated less invasively by laparoscopic surgeries.[10,83,84,85] Since laparoscopic techniques have progressed considerably in the last few decades, especially in developed countries, the treatment methods have dramatically changed. Therefore, we performed this study to uncover detailed information about the etiological characteristics of NCRHP that occurred during the 21st century. Although there were some limitations in the search methods and, for example, we could not capture the rare cases in which words relating to NCRHP did not appear in the abstracts, in total, we collected 103 cases from 72 publications that retrieved by the PubMed search system. The locations extended to 29 countries, and the cases included 38 in the first trimester, 47 in the second trimester, and 18 cases in the third trimester of gestation [Table 1]. In comparison with the 20th century worldwide review of 588 cases,[5] the cases in the first trimester seemed to increase and the possibility of uterine rupture seemed to decrease. Since we could predict that these factors had an important influence on the diagnosis and treatment of NCRHP, detailed analyses were performed along with each country or gestational age.

First, since there were differences in obstetric medical care between countries,[86,87] we divided the 103 cases between developed countries and other countries. As expected, regarding developed countries, we detected a high possibility that prompt and accurate diagnosis could be performed in the first trimester of gestation, and consequently, the frequencies of emergency surgery and uterine rupture were significantly low [Figure 3]. These differences were probably caused by the relatively frequent pregnancy follow-up and detailed ultrasound examination conducted in the first trimester.[80,88] When searching for the risk of uterine rupture by multivariate analysis of ten representative factors, we also detected that “developed country” was associated with a significantly low risk [Table 3]. In addition, “second trimester” showed a significantly high risk, apart from some symptoms. From a technical viewpoint, the frequencies of MRI use and laparoscopic surgery were obviously higher in developed countries. Although not the majority, 13 out of 41 patients were diagnosed via MRI in developed countries, but we detected only three similar cases in other countries. Among these 13 cases, seven patients were treated by laparoscopic surgeries. These results possibly indicated that if there is no technical limitation, such as in developed countries, laparoscopy could be used in unruptured cases after achieving a prompt and accurate diagnosis, since MRI has become the gold standard for the evaluation of congenital MDA.[1] On the other hand, some cases of NCRHP were diagnosed in the third trimester of gestation, frequently in developing countries, possibly because the misdiagnosis of intrauterine pregnancy was caused by the insufficient pregnancy follow-up. Paradoxically, these data indicated another possibility for developed countries. Although there was a possibility that fatal cases were not always reported, among these cases, a certain number of patients could obtain live newborn babies [Table 3]. These infants derived from NCRHP are scarcely seen in developed countries, and we could detect only one case in Korea.[64]

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Differences between three trimesters. 1st: First trimester of gestation, 2nd: Second trimester of gestation, 3rd: Third trimester of gestation, T: Total, Shock: Hypovolemic shock, Right-sided: Right-sided noncommunicating rudimentary horn pregnancy, Intrauterine fetus: Diagnosis of suspected intrauterine fetus, Termination: Pregnancy termination, Laparoscopy: Laparoscopic surgery *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01

Second, the different clinical conditions of NCRHP were predicted to largely depend on the gestational age, and we divided the 103 cases into three groups by the three trimesters of gestation [Figure 3]. This analysis indicated the two important results. One finding was that the ratio of cases with the following factors, including “developed country,” “MRI use,” “correct diagnosis,” and “laparoscopic surgery,” decreased with an increase in gestational age. Conversely, the number of cases with an “intrauterine fetus” increased. The other finding was that symptoms and adverse events were frequently detected in the second trimester of gestation, and these included “abdominal pain,” “hypovolemic shock,” “uterine rupture,” and “massive blood loss.” These tendencies were coincident with past reviews to some extent, in which researchers concluded that rupture occurs in 80%–90% of cases in the midtrimester and that only <10% of cases reach term, with a fetal salvage rate of <5%.[5,89] When combining the results of patients in the third trimester of gestation shown in Table 2 with these tendencies, that is, severe complications occurring most frequently in the second trimester of gestation, patients could possibly obtain live newborn babies after undergoing strict observations during the first and second trimesters of gestation. From this viewpoint, this study may be able to offer some information that can be explained to a new patient, even though it was impracticable to select follow-up observations when detecting NCRHP.

CONCLUSION

In the 21st century, since laparoscopic treatments for NCRHP appeared more generally in developed countries and were mainly performed in the first trimester of gestation, the tendencies detected in both of their characteristics and management were remarkably affected by the country and gestational age. In our analysis, safe and minimally invasive treatments may be concluded to depend on a prompt and accurate diagnosis, probably led by detailed pregnancy follow-up and in some cases, using MRI. On the other hand, we could detect some cases in which live newborn babies were obtained, especially in developing countries. Therefore, in-depth knowledge and detailed explanations are needed for managing NCRHP.

Ethics approval

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Teikyo University. The study registry number, registry name, and registration date are as follows: 20-094, Clinical outcomes, and postoperative complications of laparoscopic surgeries for gynecological diseases: A retrospective analysis, 2020/7/17.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this case report and any accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal.

Financial support and sponsorship

The study was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Conventions.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Passos IM, Britto RL. Diagnosis and treatment of Müllerian malformations. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;59:183–8. doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2020.01.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.O’Leary JL, O’Leary JA. Rudimentary horn pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 1963;22:371–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Reichman D, Laufer MR, Robinson BK. Pregnancy outcomes in unicornuate uteri: A review. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:1886–94. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.02.163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Heinonen PK. Unicornuate uterus and rudimentary horn. Fertil Steril. 1997;68:224–30. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(97)81506-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Nahum GG. Rudimentary uterine horn pregnancy. The 20th-century worldwide experience of 588 cases. J Reprod Med. 2002;47:151–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Sutkin G, Jazayeri A. Diagnosis of a rudimentary uterine horn in pregnancy. J Ultrasound Med. 2003;22:985–8. doi: 10.7863/jum.2003.22.9.985. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Bruand M, Thubert T, Winer N, Gueudry P, Dochez V. Rupture of non-communicating rudimentary horn of uterus at 12 weeks’ gestation. Cureus. 2020;12:e7191. doi: 10.7759/cureus.7191. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ural SH, Artal R. Third-trimester rudimentary horn pregnancy. A case report. J Reprod Med. 1998;43:919–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Yassin A, Munaza S, Mohammed A. Tale of rudimentary horn pregnancy: Case reports and literature review. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019;32:671–6. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2017.1387533. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Contreras KR, Rothenberg JM, Kominiarek MA, Raff GJ. Hand-assisted laparoscopic management of a midtrimester rudimentary horn pregnancy with placenta increta: A case report and literature review. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15:644–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2008.06.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ağaçayak E, Peker N, Yavuz M, Fındık FM, Evsen MS, Gül T. Rudimentary horn pregnancy-ten years of experience. Ginekol Pol. 2020;91:117–22. doi: 10.5603/GP.2020.0027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Patil MM, Wagh G, Kulkarni YS. Rupture of a gravid non-communicating horn with 18-weeks pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2013;63:347–9. doi: 10.1007/s13224-012-0203-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Munck DF, Markauskas A, Lamont RF, Jørgensen JS. Pregnancy in a non-communicating rudimentary uterine horn in an obese woman. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92:869. doi: 10.1111/aogs.12098. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hassan CH, Karim AK, Ismail NA, Omar MH. Case report of ruptured non-communicating right rudimentary horn pregnancy: An acute emergency. Acta Medica (Hradec Kralove) 2011;54:125–6. doi: 10.14712/18059694.2016.34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Chopra S, Keepanasseril A, Rohilla M, Bagga R, Kalra J, Jain V. Obstetric morbidity and the diagnostic dilemma in pregnancy in rudimentary horn: Retrospective analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009;280:907–10. doi: 10.1007/s00404-009-1013-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Bradshaw H, Stewart P. Failed medical termination of pregnancy associated with implantation in a non-communicating uterine horn. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2004;30:178. doi: 10.1783/1471189041261735. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Juneja SK, Gupta S, Tandon P, Gumber N. Rupture of noncommunicating rudimentary horn of uterus. Int J Appl Basic Med Res. 2017;7:146–7. doi: 10.4103/ijabmr.IJABMR_112_16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Amer WM, Altraigey A. A triplet's ectopic pregnancy in a non-communicating rudimentary horn and spontaneous rupture. Ginekol Pol. 2020;91:569–70. doi: 10.5603/GP.2020.0089. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Rajbhandary S, Das A, Rai M, Sah AK. Rupture of non-communicating rudimentary horn pregnancy at 15 weeks with previous normal pregnancies: A case report. JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc. 2020;58:614–7. doi: 10.31729/jnma.5104. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Hafizi L, Ghomian N. Twin pregnancy in the unicornuate uterus and non-communicating rudimentary horn: A case report. Int J Reprod Biomed. 2019;17:67–70. doi: 10.18502/ijrm.v17i1.3822. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Monacci F, Lanfredini N, Zandri S, Strigini F, Luchi C, Giannini A, et al. Diagnosis and laparoscopic management of a 5-week ectopic pregnancy in a rudimentary uterine horn: A case report. Case Rep Womens Health. 2019;21:e00088. doi: 10.1016/j.crwh.2018.e00088. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Hussain A, Jawaid H, Faisal N, Shah N, Kamal NS. Ruptured rudimentary horn pregnancy revealed on emergency laparotomy: A case of primigravida presenting in a developing country. Cureus. 2018;10:e2591. doi: 10.7759/cureus.2591. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Shrivastava N, Yadav S, Shrivastava V. Term pregnancy with a live fetus in non-communicating rudimentary horn with placenta percreta. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2015;65:339–41. doi: 10.1007/s13224-014-0653-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Singh P, Gupta R, Das B, Bajaj SK, Misra R. Midtrimester spontaneous torsion of unruptured gravid rudimentary horn: Presurgical diagnosis on magnetic resonance imaging. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2015;41:1478–82. doi: 10.1111/jog.12722. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Thakur S, Sood A, Sharma C. Ruptured noncommunicating rudimentary horn pregnancy at 19 weeks with previous cesarean delivery: A case report. Case Rep Obstet Gynecol. 2012;2012:308476. doi: 10.1155/2012/308476. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Upadhyaya I. Non-communicating rudimentary uterine horn pregnancy. JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc. 2011;51:199–202. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kalkat RK, Baxter AD, Thomson AJ. Heterotopic pregnancy in non-communicating horn of bicornuate uterus: A novel management approach. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;32:101–2. doi: 10.3109/01443615.2011.627479. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Zeqiri F, Paçarada M, Kongjeli N, Zeqiri V, Kongjeli G, Krasniqi B. Ruptured rudimentary horn pregnancy at sixteen weeks. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2010;11:165–7. doi: 10.5152/jtgga.2010.28. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Dhar H. Ruptured rudimentary horn at 22 weeks. Niger Med J. 2012;53:175–7. doi: 10.4103/0300-1652.104391. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Dhar H. Rupture of non-communicating rudimentary uterine horn pregnancy. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2008;18:53–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Mavrelos D, Sawyer E, Helmy S, Holland TK, Ben-Nagi J, Jurkovic D. Ultrasound diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy in the non-communicating horn of a unicornuate uterus (cornual pregnancy) Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007;30:765–70. doi: 10.1002/uog.5131. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Kukreti M, Singhal VP, Kukreti R, Prakash A. Pregnancy in a rupturing non-communicating rudimentary horn masquerading as epigastric pain. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2004;44:470–2. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.2004.00276.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Cutner A, Saridogan E, Hart R, Pandya P, Creighton S. Laparoscopic management of pregnancies occurring in non-communicating accessory uterine horns. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004;113:106–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2003.09.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Has R, Ermis H, Yildirim A. A malformed fetus in a rudimentary uterine horn pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2000;16:200–2. doi: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.2000.00207.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Suri V, Dhaliwal L, Prasad GR, Pathak N, Gupta I. Pregnancy in a noncommunicating horn of a unicornuate uterus with fetal salvage. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2002;81:473–4. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0412.2002.810518.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Nishi H, Funayama H, Fukumine N, Yagishita M, Nohira T, Suzuki Y, et al. Rupture of pregnant noncommunicating rudimentary uterine horn with fetal salvage: A case report. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2003;268:224–6. doi: 10.1007/s00404-002-0310-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Samuels TA, Awonuga A. Second-trimester rudimentary uterine horn pregnancy: Rupture after labor induction with misoprostol. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106:1160–2. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000182989.06439.68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Okonta PI, Abedi H, Ajuyah C, Omo-Aghoja L. Pregnancy in a noncommunicating rudimentary horn of a unicornuate uterus: A case report. Cases J. 2009;2:6624. doi: 10.1186/1757-1626-2-6624. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Baughn MR, Vaux K, Masliah E. Placenta accreta in a separate uterine horn. Pediatr Dev Pathol. 2010;13:63–5. doi: 10.2350/09-03-0627-CR.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kanagal DV, Hanumanalu LC. Ruptured rudimentary horn pregnancy at 25 weeks with previous vaginal delivery: A case report. Case Rep Obstet Gynecol. 2012;2012:985076. doi: 10.1155/2012/985076. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Moawad GN, Abi Khalil ED. A case of recurrent rudimentary horn ectopic pregnancies managed by methotrexate therapy and laparoscopic excision of the rudimentary horn. Case Rep Obstet Gynecol. 2016;2016:5747524. doi: 10.1155/2016/5747524. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Tesemma MG. Pregnancy in noncommunicating rudimentary horn of unicornuate uterus: A case report and review of the literature. Case Rep Obstet Gynecol. 2019;2019:1489751. doi: 10.1155/2019/1489751. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Chatziioannidou K, Fehlmann A, Dubuisson J. Case report: Laparoscopic management of an ectopic pregnancy in a rudimentary non-communicating uterine horn. Front Surg. 2020;7:582954. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2020.582954. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Cheng C, Tang W, Zhang L, Luo M, Huang M, Wu X, et al. Unruptured pregnancy in a noncommunicating rudimentary horn at 37 weeks with a live fetus: A case report. J Biomed Res. 2015;29:83–6. doi: 10.7555/JBR.29.20130089. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Cobec IM, Seropian P, Rempen A. Pregnancy in a non-communicating rudimentary horn of a unicornuate uterus. Hippokratia. 2019;23:92–4. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Rodrigues Â, Neves AR, Castro MG, Branco M, Geraldes F, Águas F. Successful management of a rudimentary uterine horn ectopic pregnancy by combining methotrexate and surgery: A case report. Case Rep Womens Health. 2019;24:e00158. doi: 10.1016/j.crwh.2019.e00158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Rottenstreich M, Sela HY. Twin pregnancy in non-communicating rudimentary horn. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018;228:337–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.07.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Dove CK, Harvey SM, Spalluto LB. Sonographic findings of early pregnancy in the rudimentary horn of a unicornuate uterus: A two case report. Clin Imaging. 2018;47:25–9. doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2017.08.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Kanno Y, Suzuki T, Nakamura E, Goya K, Nishijima Y, Shinoda M, et al. Successful term delivery after laparoscopic resection of a non-communicating rudimentary horn in a patient with a unicornuate uterus: A case report. Tokai J Exp Clin Med. 2014;39:59–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Sharma D, Usha MG, Gaikwad R, Sudha S. Laparoscopic resection of unruptured rudimentary horn pregnancy. J Gynecol Endosc Surg. 2011;2:101–4. doi: 10.4103/0974-1216.114161. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Edelman AB, Jensen JT, Lee DM, Nichols MD. Successful medical abortion of a pregnancy within a noncommunicating rudimentary uterine horn. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:886–7. doi: 10.1067/s0002-9378(03)00121-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Park JK, Dominguez CE. Combined medical and surgical management of rudimentary uterine horn pregnancy. JSLS. 2007;11:119–22. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Henriet E, Roman H, Zanati J, Lebreton B, Sabourin JC, Loic M. Pregnant noncommunicating rudimentary uterine horn with placenta percreta. JSLS. 2008;12:101–3. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Herchelroath D, Miller JL, Wang KC. Novel management of ectopic pregnancy in a noncommunicating rudimentary horn of a unicornuate uterus. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2018;118:623–6. doi: 10.7556/jaoa.2018.137. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Tolani AD, Kadambari, Deenadayal A, Donthi S, Yellenki IR, Deenadayal M. Timely identification of pregnancy in noncommunicating horn of unicornuate uterus by three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasonography. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2018;8:39. doi: 10.4103/jcis.JCIS_25_18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Jegannathan D, Indiran V. Magnetic resonance imaging of classified and unclassified Müllerian duct anomalies: Comparison of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology classifications. SA J Radiol. 2018;22:1259. doi: 10.4102/sajr.v22i1.1259. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Li X, Peng P, Liu X, Chen W, Liu J, Yang J, et al. The pregnancy outcomes of patients with rudimentary uterine horn: A 30-year experience. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0210788. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210788. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Feteh VF, Dimala CA, Njim T, Fuka B. Post term pregnancy in a non-communicating rudimentary horn of a unicornuate uterus. BMC Res Notes. 2016;9:209. doi: 10.1186/s13104-016-2013-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Rathod S, Samal SK. A true cornual pregnancy with placenta percreta resulting in a viable fetus. Int J Appl Basic Med Res. 2015;5:203–5. doi: 10.4103/2229-516X.165364. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Iyoke C, Okafor C, Ugwu G, Oforbuike C. Live birth following a term pregnancy in a non-communicating rudimentary horn of a unicornuate uterus. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2014;4:126–8. doi: 10.4103/2141-9248.126622. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Nanda S, Dahiya K, Sharma N, Aggarwal D, Sighal SR, Sangwan N. Successful twin pregnancy in a unicornuate uterus with one fetus in the non-communicating rudimentary horn. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009;280:993–5. doi: 10.1007/s00404-009-1028-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Arslan T, Bilgiç E, Sentürk MB, Yücel N. Rudimentary uterine horn pregnancy: A mystery diagnosis. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:3–e1.3. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.08.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Patra S, Puri M, Trivedi SS, Yadav R, Bali J. Unruptured term pregnancy with a live fetus with placenta percreta in a non-communicating rudimentary horn. Congenit Anom (Kyoto) 2007;47:156–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-4520.2007.00163.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Shin JW, Kim HJ. Case of live birth in a non-communicating rudimentary horn pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2005;31:329–31. doi: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2005.00296.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Kumar N, Das V, Pandey A, Agrawal S. Torsion and rupture of a non-communicating rudimentary horn in a 17-week gestation in a 16-year-old girl: Lessons learnt. BMJ Case Rep. 2018;2018:bcr2017222073. doi: 10.1136/bcr-2017-222073. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Abd El-Halim D, Torky HA. Pregnancy in a non-communicating rudimentary horn: A cause of failed medical and surgical management of second trimester pregnancy loss. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2017;22:391–2. doi: 10.1080/13625187.2017.1312326. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Kaveh M, Mehdizadeh Kashi A, Sadegi K, Forghani F. Pregnancy in non-communicating rudimentary horn of a unicornuate uterus. Int J Fertil Steril. 2018;11:318–20. doi: 10.22074/ijfs.2018.5022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Souza CS, Dorneles GG, Mendonça GN, Santos CM, Gallarreta FM, Konopka CK. Pregnancy in non-communicating unicornuate uterus: Diagnosis difficulty and outcomes – A case report. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2017;39:640–4. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1607046. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Rathod S, Samal SK. A rare case of heterotopic pregnancy with ruptured left rudimentary horn pregnancy. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9:D03–4. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/10677.5639. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Alkhateeb HM, Yaseen EM. Twin pregnancy in an accessory cavitated non-communicating uterus. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2015;10:45–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ijscr.2015.03.023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Ambusaidi Q, Jha C. Pregnancy in the rudimentary uterine horn: Case report of an unusual presentation. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2014;14:e134–8. doi: 10.12816/0003349. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.van Esch EM, Lashley EE, Berning B, de Kroon CD. The value of hysteroscopy in the diagnostic approach to a rudimentary horn pregnancy. BMJ Case Rep. 2010;2010:bcr0820103229. doi: 10.1136/bcr.08.2010.3229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Daskalakis G, Pilalis A, Lykeridou K, Antsaklis A. Rupture of noncommunicating rudimentary uterine horn pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;100:1108–10. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(02)02153-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Singhal S, Agarwal U, Sharma D, Sirohiwal D. Pregnancy in asymmetric blind hemicavity of Robert's uterus – A previously unreported phenomenon. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2003;107:93–5. doi: 10.1016/s0301-2115(02)00238-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Tsafrir A, Rojansky N, Sela HY, Gomori JM, Nadjari M. Rudimentary horn pregnancy: First-trimester prerupture sonographic diagnosis and confirmation by magnetic resonance imaging. J Ultrasound Med. 2005;24:219–23. doi: 10.7863/jum.2005.24.2.219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Cash RL, Rahmani R, Herer ER. First trimester screening aids in the diagnosis and management of an ectopic pregnancy in a noncommunicating uterine horn. J Clin Ultrasound. 2006;34:446–9. doi: 10.1002/jcu.20260. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Goel P, Saha PK, Mehra R, Huria A. Unruptured postdated pregnancy with a live fetus in a noncommunicating rudimentary horn. Indian J Med Sci. 2007;61:23–27. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Taori K, Saha BK, Shah D, Khadaria N, Jadhav V, Jawale R. Sonographic diagnosis of uncomplicated first-trimester pregnancy in the rudimentary horn of a unicornuate uterus. J Clin Ultrasound. 2008;36:45–7. doi: 10.1002/jcu.20337. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Hillman RT, Chin HG, Mody SK. Management of second trimester fetal demise in a noncommunicating uterine horn. Case Rep Obstet Gynecol. 2015;2015:927037. doi: 10.1155/2015/927037. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Lai YJ, Lin CH, Hou WC, Hwang KS, Yu MH, Su HY. Pregnancy in a noncommunicating rudimentary horn of a unicornuate uterus: Prerupture diagnosis and management. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;55:604–6. doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2016.06.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Ross ME, Scott S, Behbakht K, Harper T. Spontaneous dichorionic-diamniotic twins in a noncommunicating uterine horn: A case report. Case Rep Womens Health. 2020;26:e00177. doi: 10.1016/j.crwh.2020.e00177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Walker C, Collins L, Pham A, George J, Johnson S. Avoiding the fatal misdiagnosis of pregnancy in a noncommunicating rudimentary horn using 3D transvaginal ultrasound. J Clin Ultrasound. 2020;48:553–6. doi: 10.1002/jcu.22836. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Kadan Y, Romano S. Rudimentary horn pregnancy diagnosed by ultrasound and treated by laparoscopy – A case report and review of the literature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15:527–30. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2008.05.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Shahid A, Olowu O, Kandasamy G, O’Donnell C, Odejinmi F. Laparoscopic management of a 16-week ruptured rudimentary horn pregnancy: A case and literature review. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2010;282:121–5. doi: 10.1007/s00404-009-1212-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Sönmezer M, Taskin S, Atabekoğlu C, Güngör M, Unlü C. Laparoscopic management of rudimentary uterine horn pregnancy: Case report and literature review. JSLS. 2006;10:396–9. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Hill K, Thomas K, AbouZahr C, Walker N, Say L, Inoue M, et al. Estimates of maternal mortality worldwide between 1990 and 2005: An assessment of available data. Lancet. 2007;370:1311–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61572-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Kassebaum NJ, Bertozzi-Villa A, Coggeshall MS, Shackelford KA, Steiner C, Heuton KR, et al. Global, regional, and national levels and causes of maternal mortality during 1990-2013: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet. 2014;384:980–1004. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60696-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Jayasinghe Y, Rane A, Stalewski H, Grover S. The presentation and early diagnosis of the rudimentary uterine horn. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105:1456–67. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000161321.94364.56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Rolen AC, Choquette AJ, Semmens JP. Rudimentary uterine horn: Obstetric and gynecologic implications. Obstet Gynecol. 1966;27:806–13. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Gynecology and Minimally Invasive Therapy are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer -- Medknow Publications

RESOURCES