4.7 Article

The interovarian variation in three-dimensional ultrasound markers of ovarian reserve in women undergoing baseline investigation for subfertility

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 95, 期 2, 页码 667-672

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.09.031

关键词

Ovarian reserve; physiological variation; folliculogenesis; ultrasound; three-dimensional

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluat differences in the three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound markers of ovarian reserve between the ovaries within an individual undergoing investigation for subfertility. Design: Prospective observational study. Setting: University-based assisted conception unit. Patient(s): Two hundred seventy women undergoing baseline early follicular phase ultrasound as an investigation for subfertility. Intervention(s): Three-dimensional ultrasound scan in early follicular phase between days 2 and 5 of the menstrual cycle. Main Outcome Measure(s): Variations in 3D ultrasound markers of ovarian reserve between the two ovaries within same individual. Result(s): Two hundred fifteen subjects were analyzed for ovarian volume and antral follicle count, and 205 subjects for 3D power Doppler indices. Significant differences were noted (median, range) in the number of antral follicles measuring >6.0 mm and ovarian volume. Significant correlation was noted between the two ovaries in antral follicles measuring 6.0 mm or less, ovarian volume, and 3D power Doppler indices. On stratifying the antral follicles according to size using sonography-based automated volume calculation with postprocessing, maximum variation was seen in follicles measuring more than 6.0 mm as measured using limits of agreement. Conclusion(s): There are significant differences in the antral follicles measuring >6.0 mm and ovarian volume, as measured using 3D ultrasound, that require consideration when comparing the two ovaries within an individual. (Fertil Steril(R) 2011;95:667-72. (C) 2011 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据