CASE PRESENTATION: We report a case of a patient with unsuspected müllerian duct anomaly in a term pregnancy. A 33-year-old Malay woman with previously uninvestigated involuntary primary infertility for 4 years presented with acute right pyelonephritis in labor at 38 weeks of gestation. She has had multiple congenital anomalies since birth and had undergone numerous surgeries during childhood. Her range of congenital defects included hydrocephalus, for which she was put on a ventriculoperitoneal shunt; imperforated anus; and tracheoesophageal fistula with a history of multiples surgeries. In addition, she had a shorter right lower limb length with limping gait. Her physical examination revealed a transverse scar at the right hypochondrium and multiple scars at the posterior thoracic region, levels T10-T12. Abdominal palpation revealed a term size uterus that was deviated to the left, with a singleton fetus in a nonengaged cephalic presentation. The cervical os was closed, but stricture bands were present on the vagina from the upper third until the fornices posteriorly. She also had multiple rectal prolapses and strictures over the rectum due to previous anorectoplasty. An emergency cesarean delivery was performed in view of the history of anorectoplasty, vaginal stricture, and infertility. Intraoperative findings showed a left unicornuate uterus with a communicating right rudimentary horn.
CONCLUSION: Most cases of müllerian duct anomaly remain undiagnosed due to the lack of clinical suspicion and the absence of pathognomonic clinical and radiological characteristics. Because it is associated with a wide range of gynecological and obstetric complications, it is vital for healthcare providers to be aware of its existence and the role of antenatal radiological investigations in its diagnosis. The presence of multiple congenital abnormalities and a history of infertility in a pregnant woman should warrant the exclusion of müllerian duct anomalies from the beginning. Early detection of müllerian duct anomalies can facilitate an appropriate delivery plan and improve the general obstetric outcome.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomised prospective crossover study was designed to compare the AR Gynae endotrainer versus Karl Storz SZABO-BERCI-SACKIER laparoscopic trainer as a tool for training gynaecology laparoscopic skills. Participants were assigned to perform two specially designed tasks used for laparoscopic training using both endotrainers. All subjects evaluated both simulators concerning their performance by the use of a questionnaire comparing: design, ports placement, visibility, ergonomics, triangulation of movement, fulcrum effect, depth perception, ambidexterity, resources for training, and resources for teaching. The overall score was defined as the median value obtained. The ability and time taken for participants to complete the tasks using both endotrainers were also compared. A total of 26 participants were enrolled in this study, including 13 Masters's students from the Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology and 13 Masters's students from the Department of Surgery, Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia (HUSM), Kelantan, Malaysia.
RESULTS: A better performance was observed with AR Gynae as compared to Karl Storz endotrainer in five out of ten items evaluated in the questionnaire. Additionally, the overall score of AR Gynae endotrainer (median of 3.98) was comparable to that of Karl Storz endotrainer (median of 3.91) with p=0.519. For the items design and resources for teaching, the evaluation for AR Gynae endotrainer was significantly higher with p-values of 0.003 and 0.032, respectively. All participants were able to complete both tasks using both endotrainers. The time taken to complete both tasks was comparable on both endotrainers. Also, the AR Gynae endotrainer was cheaper.
CONCLUSIONS: The AR Gynae endotrainer was found to be a convenient and cost-effective laparoscopic simulator for gynaecology laparoscopic training and was comparable to the established Karl Storz SZABO-BERCI-SACKIER laparoscopic trainer.