EC Gynaecology

We present the unexpected case of a 36-year-old patient who was scheduled for a routine abdominal cesarean section due to a history of previous cesarean section and pelvic stricture, with no significant medical history. She had received adequate prenatal care. During surgery, the patient was found to have uterus didelphys, diagnosed in situ, along with placental accreta of a low posteriorly inserted placenta, severe hemorrhage with progressive muscular infiltration, and uterine atony. The procedure culminated in an emergency total hysterectomy.

 Keywords: Placental Accretism; Uterus Didelphys; Uterine Hemorrhage

1. Itana de Mattos Pinto E Passos and Renata Lopes Britto. “Diagnosis and treatment of müllerian malformations”. Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2 (2020): 183-188.
2. Wang S., et al. “Perinatal outcomes of women with Müllerian anomalies”. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 4 (2023): 1209-1216.
3. Jorgensen C and Lusiak M. “Didelphys uterus in pregnancy, an uncommon mullerian duct anomaly: a case report”. Clinical Practice and Cases in Emergency Medicine 4 (2021): 447-449.
4. Lekovich J., et al. “Placental malperfusion as a possible mechanism of preterm birth in patients with Mullerian anomalies”. Journal of Perinatal Medicine 1 (2017): 45-49.
5. Tuştaş Haberal E., et al. “Placenta percreta with concomitant uterine didelphys at 18 weeks of pregnancy: a case report and review of the literature”. Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine 21 (2016): 3445-3448.
6. , et al. “Placenta increta with uterus didelphys gravidity: single hospital case report”. International Journal of Progressive Sciences and Technologies 34.1 (2022).