ArticleFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2025
Euro-Chinese consensus on accessory cavitated uterine malformation
Article in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Case Report: Preoperative ultrasonographic diagnosis of accessory cavitated uterine malformation: a case series report and narrative review.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Accessory Cavitated Uterine Malformation (ACUM): A Case Series.Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCUArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accessory cavitated uterine malformations (ACUMs) are a rare obstructive uterine anomaly that remains poorly understood, posing challenges for clinical management. The aetiopathogenesis is hypothesised to involve the duplication and persistence of ductal Müllerian tissue usually near the round ligament attachment, potentially related to gubernaculum dysfunction. ACUM is specifically classified by Acién's system, though rare variants necessitate continued international research to refine classification frameworks. Objectives: This consensus aims to develop good clinical practice recommendations for the pathophysiology, terminology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment of ACUM. Methods: A working group consisted of Chinese and European experts, after approval from the European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy, developed recommendations based on the best available evidence and experts' opinion. Results: Patients with ACUM present with typical symptoms such as dysmenorrhea and dyspareunia, and atypical symptoms, including gastrointestinal and generalised pelvic pain. Diagnostic criteria include isolated cavitated lesions in the anterolateral myometrium near the round ligament, lined by endometrial tissue and filled with haemorrhagic fluid, surrounded by a myometrial mantle with concentric orientation of myometrial fibres, and typically associated with a normal uterine cavity. Diagnosis is most accurately made through ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging. Surgical excision of the ACUM is considered the definitive treatment offering near-complete symptom resolution, and minimally invasive approach should be preferred when possible. The timing of surgery and the interval before attempting pregnancy remain unclear. The mode of delivery post-surgery is individualised based on the degree of myometrial involvement. Conclusions: The current consensus summarises the existing evidence on ACUM providing good clinical practice recommendations for their management. Existing gaps in the understanding and management of ACUMs, highlight the need for further research to guide clinical decision-making. What is New?: Good clinical practice recommendations for ACUM aiming to understand and optimise their management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.