Diaa Abd El-Halim1,2, Haitham A Torky2,3. 1. a Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology , Al-Galaa Teaching Hospital , Cairo , Egypt. 2. b Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology , As-Salam International Hospital , Cairo , Egypt. 3. c Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology , October 6 University , 6th of October City, Giza , Egypt.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We present the management of a case of failed medical and surgical management of second trimester pregnancy loss due to pregnancy in a non-communicating rudimentary horn. CASE: A 16-week intrauterine fetal death singleton pregnancy was referred to us after failed medical and surgical termination of pregnancy. Ultrasound confirmed the diagnosis and showed minimal blood clots and fluid in the pouch of Douglas. Laparoscopy showed a soft, enlarged right uterine horn not communicating with the cervix and containing the pregnancy, and a left uterine horn communicating with the cervix and showing a posterior wall perforation. The procedure was converted to laparotomy, and the right uterine horn and adjacent tube were excised. The patient made an uneventful recovery and was discharged after 3 days. CONCLUSION: Pregnancy in a non-communicating horn is rare and usually presents with serious complications. Any case of failed medical termination of pregnancy after repeated doses of misoprostol should be carefully assessed to exclude the possibility of uterine anomalies (especially in a primigravida), before proceeding with dilatation and evacuation to minimise the risk of complications.
OBJECTIVES: We present the management of a case of failed medical and surgical management of second trimester pregnancy loss due to pregnancy in a non-communicating rudimentary horn. CASE: A 16-week intrauterine fetal death singleton pregnancy was referred to us after failed medical and surgical termination of pregnancy. Ultrasound confirmed the diagnosis and showed minimal blood clots and fluid in the pouch of Douglas. Laparoscopy showed a soft, enlarged right uterine horn not communicating with the cervix and containing the pregnancy, and a left uterine horn communicating with the cervix and showing a posterior wall perforation. The procedure was converted to laparotomy, and the right uterine horn and adjacent tube were excised. The patient made an uneventful recovery and was discharged after 3 days. CONCLUSION: Pregnancy in a non-communicating horn is rare and usually presents with serious complications. Any case of failed medical termination of pregnancy after repeated doses of misoprostol should be carefully assessed to exclude the possibility of uterine anomalies (especially in a primigravida), before proceeding with dilatation and evacuation to minimise the risk of complications.
Entities:
Keywords:
Second trimester; failed medical and surgical termination; pregnancy in non-communicating rudimentary horn