SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.89 número4Retención urinaria aguda como indicio clínico del himen imperforado en una adolescenteDerrame pleural unilateral como única manifestación del síndrome de hiperestimulación ovárica en el contexto de un tratamiento de fecundación in vitro índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • No hay artículos similaresSimilares en SciELO

Compartir


Ginecología y obstetricia de México

versión impresa ISSN 0300-9041

Resumen

JIMENEZ-BONOLA, Azael; VALENCIA-TORRES, Miguel Ángel  y  OLIVARES-MONTANO, Alma Karina. Endometrial osseous metaplasia: a rare differential diagnosis of translocated IUD: hysteroscopic management. Case Report. Ginecol. obstet. Méx. [online]. 2021, vol.89, n.4, pp.336-342.  Epub 11-Feb-2022. ISSN 0300-9041.  https://doi.org/10.24245/gom.v89i4.4615.

BACKGROUND:

Endometrial osseous metaplasia has an estimated incidence of 3 cases per 10,000 women and there are few reported cases. Symptoms are nonspecific: chronic pelvic pain, abnormal uterine bleeding, dysmenorrhea and dyspareunia. Most patients suffer from primary or secondary infertility. There are different theories of its pathophysiology. Two-dimensional endovaginal pelvic ultrasound plays a decisive role in the diagnosis; most cases are an incidental finding with a typical structure mimicking an intrauterine device.

CLINICAL CASE:

47-year-old female patient, in perimenopause, with chronic pelvic pain and abnormal uterine bleeding. She came for consultation with a translocated intrauterine device, noticed in the routine gynecological ultrasonography, with an apparent history of having had it removed 21 years ago. During the examination the reins of the IUD were not observed. Office hysteroscopy showed endometrial bone metaplasia; the bone fragments were removed, and her symptoms subsided. She continued to be followed up in the climacteric clinic for treatment of perimenopausal symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS:

Endometrial bone metaplasia is rare, with very few cases reported worldwide, perhaps because it is underdiagnosed. The pathophysiology is still unclear, although its different theories are accepted. It should be suspected in patients without an intrauterine device, in the presence of ultrasonographic findings compatible with its location, associated with abnormal uterine bleeding and chronic pelvic pain. Most of the reported cases are associated with infertility. The definitive diagnosis and treatment is with office hysteroscopy, with grasper or hysteroscopic resectoscope.

Palabras llave : Endometrial osseous metaplasia; Abnormal uterine bleeding; Dysmenorrhea; Dyspareunia; Secondary infertility; Incidence.

        · resumen en Español     · texto en Español