Co-Existence of a Rudimentary Non-Communicating Horn with a Unicornuate Uterus in Association with 2 Components of the VACTERL Association: A Case Report

Co-Existence of a Rudimentary Non-Communicating Horn with a Unicornuate Uterus in Association with 2 Components of the VACTERL Association: A Case Report

Review Data

Q: Is the topic relevant to the journal area of interest? Is it contemporary and interesting for


A: Very good


Abstract & Keywords

Q: Are all required components included in the abstract? Are the keywords appropriately chosen?

A: Excellent



Q: Is the goal explicitly stated in the Introduction? Is its formulation clear and unambiguous?

A: Good



Q: Is the paper's structure coherent? Is it in coherence with the goal of the paper?

A: Good


Tools and Methods

Q: Are methods the author uses adequate and well used?

A: Very good


Discussion & Conclusion

Q: Is it related to the results presented before? Do you consider them as coherent?

A: Good



The Discussion puts forth the rationale for taking up the study, effectively describes the relevant literature and enlists the implications of the findings from the present study in that context. It explains the challenges in treating the patient in the present case clearly. It also offers useful suggestions with respect to the treatment regimen. The case is well supported with figures. It throws light upon the rarity of the case presented. The Conclusion aptly stresses on the importance of considering the diagnosis of a Mullerian defect in a patient born with components of the VACTERL association.



Q: Does the author utilize relevant literature?

A: Very good


Author's knowledge

Q: What is the level of the author’s knowledge? Does the author utilize all recent contributions relevant to the topic?

A: Good



Q: Is the length of the paper adequate to the significance of the topic? Do you suggest shortening the paper without losing its value?

A: Good


Figures & Tables

Q: Does the author use them suitably? Are legend and notations clear?

A: Very good


Writing style

Q: Is it clear and understandable?

A: Good


Further comments on the paper

Comments: This case report presents the case of an 18-year-old woman with a unicornuate uterus along with a co-existent non-communicating rudimentary uterine horn who was born with an extra thumb and had a trachea-bronchial remnant with esophageal stenosis that were both operated on earlier. The prevalence of a unicornuate uterus in the general population is 1:1000 and is extremely rare. This study holds significance as it is the third case reported in the literature where the association of components of VACTERL association to a unicornuate uterus with a rudimentary horn is described. It also highlights the importance of considering the diagnosis of a mullerian anomaly in a patient with VACTERL association especially as a delay diagnosis and pregnancy in the rudimentary horn carries a high risk for uterine rupture if pregnancy develops and a high risk for maternal mortality.


Q: Would you recommend this manuscript for further publication?

A: Yes - Suitable to be published

If you have any questions and clarifications you can write to the journal.

Science Repository Team


Author Info

Corresponding Author
Jose D Roman
Department of Gynaecology, Braemar Hospital, Hamilton Lake, Hamilton, New Zealand

Article Info

Article Type
Case Report
Publication history
Received: Wed 07, Jul 2021
Accepted: Wed 21, Jul 2021
Published: Tue 03, Aug 2021
© 2023 Jose D Roman. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Hosting by Science Repository.
DOI: 10.31487/j.CROGR.2021.02.01