Download PDF
Semin Reprod Med 2011; 29(1): 045-054
DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1268703
© Thieme Medical Publishers

Vaginal Reconstruction with the Abbè-McIndoe Technique: From Dermal Grafts to Autologous in Vitro Cultured Vaginal Tissue Transplant

Pierluigi Benedetti Panici1 , Ilary Ruscito1 , Maria Luisa Gasparri1 , Diana Maffucci1 , Cinzia Marchese2 , Filippo Bellati1
  • 1Institute of Gynecology and Obstetrics, of “Sapienza” University, Rome, Italy
  • 2Department of Experimental Medicine, of “Sapienza” University, Rome, Italy
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
24 February 2011 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Vaginal agenesis represents the most common anomaly of the lower female genital tract. Surgical treatments have gradually evolved from aggressive procedures to minimally invasive techniques. The Abbè-McIndoe procedure is one of the most frequent surgical procedures used. The original Abbè-McIndoe procedure consisted of the surgical creation of a vagina in between the bladder and the rectum and the successive lining with a dermal graft. In the last decades different authors have introduced several modifications, mostly changing the lining material. Amniotic membranes, inert materials, and oral mucosa have all been used to improve the short- and long-term results. Recently, we have reported the use of autologous in vitro grown vaginal tissue as lining material with highly promising results. In this review, we discuss the improvements achieved using this minimally invasive procedure and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the different materials.

KEYWORDS

Abbè-McIndoe - autologous tissue - Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome - vaginal agenesis - vaginoplasty

REFERENCES

  • 1 Evans T N, Poland M L, Boving R L. Vaginal malformations.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1981;  141 (8) 910-920
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Rock J A, Azziz R. Genital anomalies in childhood.  Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1987;  30 (3) 682-696
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Ludwig K S. The Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster syndrome. An analysis of its morphology and embryology. Part II: Embryology.  Arch Gynecol Obstet. 1998;  262 (1–2) 27-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Edmonds D K. Congenital malformations of the genital tract.  Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2000;  27 (1) 49-62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology . ACOG committee opinion. Nonsurgical diagnosis and management of vaginal agenesis. Number 274, July 2002.  Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2002;  79 (2) 167-170
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Quigley C A, De Bellis A, Marschke K B, el-Awady M K, Wilson E M, French F S. Androgen receptor defects: historical, clinical, and molecular perspectives.  Endocr Rev. 1995;  16 (3) 271-321
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Schätz T, Huber J, Wenzl R. Creation of a neovagina according to Wharton-Sheares-George in patients with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome.  Fertil Steril. 2005;  83 (2) 437-441
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Oakes M B, Eyvazzadeh A D, Quint E, Smith Y R. Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome—a review.  J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2008;  21 (6) 305-310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Griffin J E, Edwards C, Madden J D, Harrod M J, Wilson J D. Congenital absence of the vagina. The Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome.  Ann Intern Med. 1976;  85 (2) 224-236
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Duncan P A, Shapiro L R, Stangel J J, Klein R M, Addonizio J C. The MURCS association: Müllerian duct aplasia, renal aplasia, and cervicothoracic somite dysplasia.  J Pediatr. 1979;  95 (3) 399-402
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Braun-Quentin C, Billes C, Böwing B, Kotzot D. MURCS association: case report and review.  J Med Genet. 1996;  33 (7) 618-620
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Frank R T. The formation of an artificial vagina without operation.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1938;  135 1053-1055
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ingram J M. The bicycle seat stool in the treatment of vaginal agenesis and stenosis: a preliminary report.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1981;  140 (8) 867-873
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Vecchietti G. Creation of an artificial vagina in Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome.  [in Italian] Attual Ostet Ginecol. 1965;  11 (2) 131-147
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Davydov S N, Zhvitiashvili O D. Formation of vagina (colpopoiesis) from peritoneum of Douglas pouch.  Acta Chir Plast. 1974;  16 (1) 35-41
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Williams E A. Congenital absence of the vagina: a simple operation for its relief.  J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1964;  71 511-512
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Creatsas G, Deligeoroglou E, Makrakis E, Kontoravdis A, Papadimitriou L. Creation of a neovagina following Williams vaginoplasty and the Creatsas modification in 111 patients with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome.  Fertil Steril. 2001;  76 (5) 1036-1040
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Purushothaman V. Horse shoe flap vaginoplasty—a new technique of vaginal reconstruction with labia minora flaps for primary vaginal agenesis.  Br J Plast Surg. 2005;  58 (7) 934-939
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 McIndoe A H, Banniser J B. An operation for the cure of congenital absence of the vagina.  J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp. 1938;  45 490-494
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Lin W C, Chang C Y, Shen Y Y, Tsai H D. Use of autologous buccal mucosa for vaginoplasty: a study of eight cases.  Hum Reprod. 2003;  18 (3) 604-607
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Panici P B, Bellati F, Boni T, Francescangeli F, Frati L, Marchese C. Vaginoplasty using autologous in vitro cultured vaginal tissue in a patient with Mayer-von-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome.  Hum Reprod. 2007;  22 (7) 2025-2028
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Abbè R. New method of creating a vagina in a case of congenital absence.  Med Rec. 1898;  54 836-838
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Alessandrescu D, Peltecu G C, Buhimschi C S, Buhimschi I A. Neocolpopoiesis with split-thickness skin graft as a surgical treatment of vaginal agenesis: retrospective review of 201 cases.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;  175 (1) 131-138
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Bekerecioglu M, Balat O, Tercan M, Karakok M, Ugur M G, Isik D. Adaptation process of the skin graft to vaginal mucosa after McIndoe vaginoplasty.  Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2008;  277 (6) 551-554
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Hallberg H, Holmström H. Vaginal construction with skin grafts and vacuum-assisted closure.  Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2003;  37 (2) 97-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Adamson C D, Naik B J, Lynch D J. The vacuum expandable condom mold: a simple vaginal stent for McIndoe-style vaginoplasty.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;  113 (2) 664-666
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Coskun A, Coban Y K, Vardar M A, Dalay A C. The use of a silicone-coated acrylic vaginal stent in McIndoe vaginoplasty and review of the literature concerning silicone-based vaginal stents: a case report.  BMC Surg. 2007;  7 13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Tercan M, Balat O, Bekerecioglu M, Atik B. The use of fibrin glue in the McIndoe technique of vaginoplasty.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;  109 (2) 706-709
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Fedele L, Frontino G, Motta F, Restelli E, Candiani M. Creation of a neovagina in Rokitansky patients with a pelvic kidney: comparison of long-term results of the modified Vecchietti and McIndoe techniques.  Fertil Steril. 2010;  93 (4) 1280-1285
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Leduc B, van Campenhout J, Simard R. Congenital absence of the vagina. Observations on 25 cases.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1968;  100 (4) 512-520
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Garcia J, Jones Jr H W. The split thickness graft technic for vaginal agenesis.  Obstet Gynecol. 1977;  49 (3) 328-332
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Ortiz-Monasterio F, Serrano A, Barrera G, Araico J. Congenital absence of the vagina. Long-term follow-up in 21 patients treated with skin grafts.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 1972;  49 (2) 165-170
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Farber M, Mitchell G W. Surgery for congenital absence of the vagina.  Obstet Gynecol. 1978;  51 (3) 364-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Wiser W L, Bates G W. Management of agenesis of the vagina.  Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1984;  159 (2) 108-112
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Buss J G, Lee R A. McIndoe procedure for vaginal agenesis: results and complications.  Mayo Clin Proc. 1989;  64 (7) 758-761
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Rock J A, Reeves L A, Retto H, Baramki T A, Zacur H A, Jones Jr H W. Success following vaginal creation for Müllerian agenesis.  Fertil Steril. 1983;  39 (6) 809-813
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Højsgaard A, Villadsen I. McIndoe procedure for congenital vaginal agenesis: complications and results.  Br J Plast Surg. 1995;  48 (2) 97-102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Counseller V S. Management of congenital absence of the vagina.  Tex Med. 1966;  62 (1) 63-67
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Varner R E, Younger J B, Blackwell R E. Müllerian dysgenesis.  J Reprod Med. 1985;  30 (6) 443-450
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Khanna S, Khanna N N. Congenital absence of vagina: an analysis of 18 cases corrected by the McIndoe operation using a condom mould.  Int Surg. 1982;  67 (4) 345-346
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Harkins J L, Gysler M, Cowell C A. Anatomical amenorrhea: the problems of congenital vaginal agenesis and its surgical correction.  Pediatr Clin North Am. 1981;  28 (2) 345-354
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Bryans F E. Management of congenital absence of the vagina.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1981;  139 (3) 281-284
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Karjalainen O, Myllynen L, Kajanoja P, Tenhunen A, Purola E, Timonen S. Management of vaginal agenesis.  Ann Chir Gynaecol. 1980;  69 (1) 37-41
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Salvatore C A, Lodovicci O. Vaginal agenesis: an analysis of ninety cases.  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1978;  57 (1) 89-94
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Kunz J, Held E, Schreiner W E. Experience with the split-thickness graft technique in congenital absence of the vagina.  Arch Gynecol. 1978;  226 (3) 227-232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Feroze R M, Dewhurst C J, Welply G. Vaginoplasty at the Chelsea hospital for women: a comparison of two techniques.  Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1975;  82 (7) 536-540
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Page E W, Owsley Jr J Q. Surgical correction of vaginal agenesis.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1969;  105 (5) 774-785
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Cali R W, Pratt J H. Congenital absence of the vagina. Long-term results of vaginal reconstruction in 175 cases.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1968;  100 (6) 752-763
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Jackson I. The artificial vagina.  J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1965;  72 336-341
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Roberts C P, Haber M J, Rock J A. Vaginal creation for müllerian agenesis.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;  185 (6) 1349-1352 discussion 1352-1353
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Ozek C, Gurler T, Alper M et al. Modified McIndoe procedure for vaginal agenesis.  Ann Plast Surg. 1999;  43 (4) 393-396
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Tözüm R. Homotransplantation of the amniotic membrane for the treatment of congenital absence of the vagina.  Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1976;  14 (6) 553-556
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Tancer M L, Katz M, Veridiano N P. Vaginal epithelialization with human amnion.  Obstet Gynecol. 1979;  54 (3) 345-349
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Ashworth M F, Morton K E, Dewhurst J, Lilford R J, Bates R G. Vaginoplasty using amnion.  Obstet Gynecol. 1986;  67 (3) 443-446
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Morton K E, Dewhurst C J. Human amnion in the treatment of vaginal malformations.  Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1986;  93 (1) 50-54
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Mhaskar R. Amniotic membrane for cervical reconstruction.  Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2005;  90 (2) 123-127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Fotopoulou C, Sehouli J, Gehrmann N, Schoenborn I, Lichtenegger W. Functional and anatomic results of amnion vaginoplasty in young women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome.  Fertil Steril. 2010;  94 (1) 317-323
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Bürger R A, Müller S C, el-Damanhoury H, Tschakaloff A, Riedmiller H, Hohenfellner R. The buccal mucosal graft for urethral reconstruction: a preliminary report.  J Urol. 1992;  147 (3) 662-664
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Caldamone A A, Edstrom L E, Koyle M A, Rabinowitz R, Hulbert W C. Buccal mucosal grafts for urethral reconstruction.  Urology. 1998;  51 (5A, Suppl) 15-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Dessanti A, Rigamonti W, Merulla V, Falchetti D, Caccia G. Autologous buccal mucosa graft for hypospadias repair: an initial report.  J Urol. 1992;  147 (4) 1081-1083 discussion 1083-1084
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Yeşim Ozgenel G, Ozcan M. Neovaginal construction with buccal mucosal grafts.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;  111 (7) 2250-2254
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Zhao M, Li Q, Li P et al. Clinical application of autologous buccal micro-mucosa graft in vaginal reconstruction.  [in Chinese] Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2009;  23 (3) 309-312
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Hatoko M, Kuwahara M, Tanaka A et al. Application of artificial dermis graft to correct a depression after tissue resection.  Ann Plast Surg. 2000;  45 (6) 633-640
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Maruguchi T, Maruguchi Y, Suzuki S, Matsuda K, Toda K, Isshiki N. A new skin equivalent: keratinocytes proliferated and differentiated on collagen sponge containing fibroblasts.  Plast Reconstr Surg. 1994;  93 (3) 537-544 discussion 545-546
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Matsui R, Okura N, Osaki K, Konishi J, Ikegami K, Koide M. Histological evaluation of skin reconstruction using artificial dermis.  Biomaterials. 1996;  17 (10) 995-1000
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Suzuki S, Shin-ya K, Kawai K, Nishimura Y. Application of artificial dermis prior to full-thickness skin grafting for resurfacing the nose.  Ann Plast Surg. 1999;  43 (4) 439-442
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Bennett N T, Schultz G S. Growth factors and wound healing: biochemical properties of growth factors and their receptors.  Am J Surg. 1993;  165 (6) 728-737
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Kawai K, Suzuki S, Tabata Y, Ikada Y, Nishimura Y. Accelerated tissue regeneration through incorporation of basic fibroblast growth factor-impregnated gelatin microspheres into artificial dermis.  Biomaterials. 2000;  21 (5) 489-499
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Noguchi S, Nakatsuka M, Sugiyama Y, Chekir C, Kamada Y, Hiramatsu Y. Use of artificial dermis and recombinant basic fibroblast growth factor for creating a neovagina in a patient with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome.  Hum Reprod. 2004;  19 (7) 1629-1632
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Sekiba K. The Obstetrics and Gynecology Adhesion Prevention Committee . Use of Interceed(TC7) absorbable adhesion barrier to reduce postoperative adhesion reformation in infertility and endometriosis surgery.  Obstet Gynecol. 1992;  79 (4) 518-522
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Dineen P. The effect of oxidized regenerated cellulose on experimental intravascular infection.  Surgery. 1977;  82 (5) 576-579
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Hazarika E Z. Oxidised regenerated cellulose: an effective emergency haemostatic in burns surgery.  Br J Plast Surg. 1985;  38 (3) 419-421
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Uysal A C, Alagoz M S, Orbay H, Sensoz O. An alternative dressing material for the split-thickness skin graft donor site: oxidized regenerated cellulose.  Ann Plast Surg. 2006;  57 (1) 60-64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Jackson N D, Rosenblatt P L. Use of Interceed Absorbable Adhesion Barrier for vaginoplasty.  Obstet Gynecol. 1994;  84 (6) 1048-1050
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Motoyama S, Laoag-Fernandez J B, Mochizuki S, Yamabe S, Maruo T. Vaginoplasty with Interceed absorbable adhesion barrier for complete squamous epithelialization in vaginal agenesis.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;  188 (5) 1260-1264
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Sharma J B, Gupta N, Mittal S. Creation of neovagina using oxidized cellulose (Surgicel) as a surgical treatment of vaginal agenesis.  Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2007;  275 (4) 231-235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Doillon C J, Altchek A, Silver F H. Method of growing vaginal mucosal cells on a collagen sponge matrix. Results of preliminary studies.  J Reprod Med. 1990;  35 (3) 203-207
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Sobel J D, Tchao R, Bozzola J, Levison M E, Kaye D. Human vaginal epithelial multilayer tissue culture.  In Vitro. 1979;  15 (12) 993-1000
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Kussmaul A. Vom Mangel der Verkümmerung und Verdoppelung der Gebärmutter. Würzburg, Germany: Verlag der Stahelschen Buch- und Kunsthandlung; 1859
    Google Scholar
  • 80 Rokitansky K F. Über die sogenannten Verdoppelungen des Uterus.  Med Jahrb Österr Staat. 1838;  26 39-77
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Küster H. Uterus bipartitus solidus rudimentarius cum vagina solida.  Z Geburtshilfe Gynakol. 1910;  67 692-718
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Hauser G A, Schreiner W E. Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuester syndrome. Rudimentary solid bipartite uterus with solid vagina.  [in German] Schweiz Med Wochenschr. 1961;  91 381-384
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Khen-Dunlop N, Lortat-Jacob S, Thibaud E, Clément-Ziza M, Lyonnet S, Nihoul-Fekete C. Rokitansky syndrome: clinical experience and results of sigmoid vaginoplasty in 23 young girls.  J Urol. 2007;  177 (3) 1107-1111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Imparato E, Alfei A, Aspesi G, Meus A L, Spinillo A. Long-term results of sigmoid vaginoplasty in a consecutive series of 62 patients.  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007;  18 (12) 1465-1469
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Fedele L, Bianchi S, Frontino G, Fontana E, Restelli E, Bruni V. The laparoscopic Vecchietti's modified technique in Rokitansky syndrome: anatomic, functional, and sexual long-term results.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;  198 (4) 377, e1-e6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Crouch N S, Liao L M, Creighton S M. Dilators or vibrators; breaking down the barriers. Paper presented at: Royal Society of Medicine Section of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Annual Conference 2003 London, UK;
    Google Scholar
  • 87 Liao L M, Doyle J, Crouch N S, Creighton S M. Dilation as treatment for vaginal agenesis and hypoplasia: a pilot exploration of benefits and barriers as perceived by patients.  J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;  26 (2) 144-148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Smith J S, Backes D M, Hoots B E, Kurman R J, Pimenta J M. Human papillomavirus type-distribution in vulvar and vaginal cancers and their associated precursors.  Obstet Gynecol. 2009;  113 (4) 917-924
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 89 Bornstein J. The HPV vaccines—which to prefer?.  Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2009;  64 (5) 345-350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 90 Acién P, Acién M I, Quereda F, Santoyo T. Cervicovaginal agenesis: spontaneous gestation at term after previous reimplantation of the uterine corpus in a neovagina: case report.  Hum Reprod. 2008;  23 (3) 548-553
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 91 Beski S, Gorgy A, Venkat G, Craft I L, Edmonds K. Gestational surrogacy: a feasible option for patients with Rokitansky syndrome.  Hum Reprod. 2000;  15 (11) 2326-2328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 92 Poote A E, van den Akker O B. British women's attitudes to surrogacy.  Hum Reprod. 2009;  24 (1) 139-145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 93 Fageeh W, Raffa H, Jabbad H, Marzouki A. Transplantation of the human uterus.  Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2002;  76 (3) 245-251
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 94 Nair A, Stega J, Smith J R, Del Priore G. Uterus transplant: evidence and ethics.  Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;  1127 83-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Filippo BellatiM.D. 

Institute of Gynecology and Obstetrics

“Sapienza” University, Rome, Italy

Email: filippo.bellati@uniroma1.it