Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5809_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Foreword
- •Preface
- •Acknowledgments
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •Introduction
- •Tissue Characteristics
- •Ovarian Scanning
- •Embryo/Fetus Susceptibility
- •References
- •Instrument Outputs
- •The Output Indices
- •Introduction
- •Limitations
- •History
- •Conclusions
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Endometrial Blood Flow
- •Ovarian Stromal Blood Flow by 2D Doppler
- •Ovarian Stromal Blood Flow by 3D Doppler
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Transabdominal Ultrasound
- •Transvaginal Ultrasound
- •Postmenopausal Ovaries
- •Premenarchal Ovaries
- •Reproductive Age Ovaries
- •Antral Follicle Count (AFC)
- •References
- •Ovarian Cysts
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •6: PCOS
- •The Polycystic Ovarian Morphology (PCOM)
- •Ovarian Volume
- •Ovarian Stromal Blood Flow
- •Future Points
- •References
- •7: The Normal Uterus
- •Uterus
- •Myometrium
- •Endometrium
- •Cervix
- •References
- •8: Congenital Uterine Anomalies
- •Introduction
- •Müllerian Agenesis
- •Unicornuate Uterus
- •Uterus Didelphys
- •Bicornuate Uterus
- •Septate Uterus
- •Arcuate Uterus
- •Hysterosalpingography
- •Two-Dimensional Ultrasonography
- •Pelvic Magnetic Resonance Imaging
- •Three-Dimensional Ultrasonography
- •Urinary Tract Imaging
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •9: Uterine Fibroids
- •Background
- •Ultrasound
- •Saline Infusion Sonohysterography
- •Magnetic Resonance Imaging
- •Observation
- •Medical Therapies
- •Myomectomy
- •Hysteroscopic Myomectomy
- •Abdominal Myomectomy
- •Laparoscopic Myomectomy
- •Uterine Artery Embolization
- •MRgFUS
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •10: Uterine Polyps
- •Endometrial Polyps
- •Interrupted Mucosa Sign
- •Sonoelastography (SE)
- •Sonohysterography
- •Cervical Polyps
- •References
- •11: Intrauterine Adhesions
- •Introduction
- •Incidence
- •Manifestation
- •Causes
- •Risk Factors
- •Diagnosis
- •Hysteroscopic Surgery
- •Treatment Outcome
- •Radiographic Methods
- •Mechanical Barriers
- •Fluid Barriers
- •Tissue Barriers
- •Prevention Strategies
- •Recent Advances
- •Conclusion
- •Introduction
- •SHG Procedure [1, 2, 6, 13]
- •2D Versus 3D SHG
- •References
- •Gel Instillation SHG
- •SHG Versus Hysteroscopy
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Scrotal Ultrasonography
- •Paratesticular Structures
- •Epididymis
- •Varicocele
- •Vas Deferens
- •Testicular Ultrasound
- •Cryptorchidism
- •Cysts, Hydrocele, Infectious Processes
- •Testicular Masses
- •Microlithiasis
- •Testicular Torsion/Trauma
- •Transrectal Ultrasonography
- •Prostate
- •Cysts
- •Ejaculatory Duct Obstruction
- •Seminal Vesicles
- •Assisted Reproductive Techniques
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Hysterosalpingography (HSG)
- •The Technique
- •Three-Dimensional Coded Contrast Imaging (3D CCI) During HyCoSy
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Premature Luteinization
- •Multiple Pregnancies
- •Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS)
- •Ultrasound Diagnosis [17]
- •Ovaries
- •Follicles
- •Clomiphene Citrate
- •Gonadotropins
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Normal Folliculogenesis
- •Monitoring Follicular Maturation
- •Standard Ultrasound Monitoring Program
- •Self-Monitoring
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •17: SonoAVC (Sonographic-Based Automated Volume Count)
- •Introduction
- •How Does One Apply SonoAVC?
- •Follicular Monitoring
- •Case 1
- •Case 2
- •Case 3
- •Antral Follicle Count
- •References
- •18: Ultrasound-Guided Surgical Procedures
- •Introduction
- •Uterine Septum
- •Submucosal Fibroids
- •Synechiae
- •Intrauterine Foreign Bodies
- •Hematometra
- •Summary
- •Ovarian Cyst Aspiration
- •Hydrosalpinx Aspiration
- •Oocyte Retrieval
- •Endometrial Thickness
- •Embryo Transfer
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Touch ET Versus Transabdominal US-Guided ET
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •General Concepts
- •Patient’s Acceptance
- •Contraindications
- •Radiation
- •Image Post-Processing
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •A Quick Look Back at Endometrial Assessment Approaches
- •Receptive
- •Non-receptive
- •Improving Endometrial Receptivity Assessment
- •References
- •List of Relevant Websites
- •23: Early Pregnancy Ultrasound
- •Introduction
- •Pregnancy Location
- •Gestational Sac (GS)
- •Yolk Sac (YS)
- •Embryonal Heart Rate (EHR)
- •Pregnancy Dating
- •Pregnancy Viability
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •24: Ectopic Pregnancy
- •Cervical Pregnancy
- •Ovarian Pregnancy
- •Abdominal Pregnancy
- •Cesarean Scar Ectopic Pregnancy
- •Interstitial Ectopic Pregnancy
- •Ectopic After Hysterectomy
- •Summary
- •References
- •Index

5 Ultrasound andOvarian Reserve
81
Ovarian Cysts
Ovarian cysts are important to diagnose by ultrasound in the infertile patient and can affect the
ovarian volume. The most common ovarian cysts
seen in infertility patients are simple functional
cysts, hemorrhagic cysts, endometriomas, and
dermoid cysts. Functional cysts are the most
common cystic masses seen on ultrasound in the
reproductive age group. These cysts tend to stay
less than 10 cm and regress after one to two
cycles and are either follicular cysts or luteal
cysts. If they are small (<3cm) and not hormonally active, they do not need to be treated before
Fig. 5.5 (a) Hemorrhagic
cyst. (b) Endometrioma with
ground glass appearance. (c)
Dermoid cyst 3D with hair.
(d) Dermoid cyst 2D sebaceous material and hair. (e)
Malignant ovarian cyst with
blood ow into the cyst
ART.However, patients with large simple ovarian cysts may have lower response to stimulation,
and ovarian cyst aspiration immediately prior to
ovarian stimulation has been shown to be benecial [42]. A hemorrhagic cyst will show no ow
into the cyst, will jiggle with the ultrasound
probe, and will resolve spontaneously (Fig.5.5a).
An endometrioma is also a very common nding in the infertile patient and is a sign of the
presence of endometriosis in other areas [43, 44].
The typical endometrioma is a unilocular cyst
with homogeneous low-level internal echogenicity (ground glass echogenicity) of the cyst
uid (Fig.5.5b). With respect to endometrioma, a
a
b

82
L. A. Stadtmauer et al.
c
d
e
Fig. 5.5 (continued)

5 Ultrasound andOvarian Reserve
83
correct diagnosis is important for infertility with
possible need for ART.Transvaginal ultrasonography is the imaging of choice to differentiate
ovarian endometriomas from other adnexal
masses [45, 46]. Studies show that an endometrioma is associated with lower response to ovarian stimulation. However, removing the
endometrioma can also affect ovarian response
and may signicantly diminished ovarian reserve
as the base of the ovary is usually burned and the
cyst wall is stripped with damage to the follicles
[47]. Dermoid cysts can present as solid hyperechoic heterogeneous masses with a mixed pattern of solid and cystic areas (Fig.5.5c, d). They
may contain calcications, fat, and hair. Dermoids
should be removed prior to IVF if they are causing pain or if there is a question of malignancy.
Puncture during oocyte retrieval should be
avoided due to high risk of peritonitis.
Although malignancy is rare in women of
reproductive age, a suspicious ovarian mass may
be seen on an initial infertility scan. Differentiating
benign from malignant tumors is done with a
combination of morphological evaluation and
Doppler ultrasound [48]. The sensitivity and
specicity for a combination of US ndings and
color Doppler in predicting benign from malignant were 0.93 and 0.85in this study. Figure5.5e
shows an ovarian mass highly suspicious of a
malignancy, a complex mass with papillary projections, and blood ow into the cyst.
Ultrasound andPolycystic Ovary
Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is one of the
most common endocrine disorders impairing
female fertility; it has been reported to occur in
about 20% of the general female population and
in up to 50% of women undergoing IVF therapy
[49–51]. This topic is covered in detail in another
chapter but will be discussed briey here.
Ultrasound is one of the criteria for the diagnosis
of PCOS. Current data suggest that polycystic
ovaries detected by transvaginal ultrasonography
may be found in approximately 75% of women
with a clinical diagnosis of PCOS [52, 53].
However, it is not a rule that all women with
polycystic ovaries will demonstrate the clinical
and biochemical features of PCOS such as oligomenorrhea and/or hyperandrogenism. Polycystic
ovaries per se, even without PCOS, constitute a
risk factor for the development of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), and the stimulation protocol chosen should reect this.
Transvaginal ultrasound is a highly sensitive
method for identication of polycystic ovaries.
The most commonly used criteria today are those
proposed by Dewailly and colleagues with a
string of pearls pattern [54, 55] where the antral
follicles are arranged peripherally with a dense
core of ovarian stroma (Fig. 5.6). This was
reafrmed in the Rotterdam 2003 consensus
which proposed that the transvaginal threshold
for PCOM is based on the presence of an ovarian
volume ≥10cm3 (milliliters) or ≥12 small follicles in a single ovary [56]. The use of 3D ultrasound and of color and pulsed Doppler ultrasound
showing increased ovarian blood ow may further enable the identication of polycystic ovaries but is not mandatory for the diagnosis [57].
However, it is important to note that results of
studies on ovarian stromal blood ow and vascularization in PCOS have demonstrated conicting results [58].
With advancement in ultrasound technology
and concern that polycystic ovarian morphology
(PCOM) may be overdiagnosed using the
Rotterdam follicle number per ovary (FNPO)
(≥12 small follicles in a single ovary), the
Androgen Excess Society and Polycystic Ovary
Syndrome Society (AEPS) 2013 guidelines recommend using the follicle number per ovary ≥25
as the ultrasound threshold for PCOS when using
newer technology that has maximal resolution of
ovarian follicles (i.e., transducer frequency
>8MHz) [59]. The AEPS task force found that
studies investigating women from the general
population and studies analyzing control and
PCOS populations with appropriate statistics
suggest setting the criteria for increased FNPO at
≥25 follicles in women aged 18–35 years but
maintaining the criteria for increased ovarian volume at ≥10 cm
3
. They also noted that ovarian
volume had less diagnostic potential for PCOM
than FNPO.However, if such technology is not
available, AEPS recommends using ovarian volume ≥10cm3 as the ultrasound threshold for rou-

84
Fig. 5.6 Polycystic-
appearing ovary
L. A. Stadtmauer et al.
tine daily practice but not for research inquiries
that necessitate the exact and complete characterization of patients.
Comparisons between transabdominal and
transvaginal ultrasound do not nd signicant
differences in the detection rate of polycystic
ovaries. However, transabdominal sonography is
not suitable for acquiring an exact follicle count
but may reliably be used to quantify ovarian volume especially in circumstances where it is the
only method to evaluate ovarian morphology.
The automated 3D US techniques facilitate the
exclusion of a false-positive PCOS diagnosis and
reect pathophysiological changes in these
patients in a more accurate manner. It provides
novel means to calculate follicle count and assess
for ovarian volume and stromal vascularity. Due
to the elevated risk for OHSS, an early detection
of PCOS is highly recommended for women
undergoing IVF treatment. No other imaging
modality, such as magnetic resonance imaging
(MRI) for the visualization of the ovaries, is
needed for the diagnosis of PCOS.
At present, a few studies have evaluated the
use of 3D US in PCOS patients [60–69], and a
smaller amount has addressed automated 3D US
(SonoAVC) [33, 57, 58, 70, 71]. Only one study
had postulated a 3D US follicle threshold for
PCOM using 3D volume-based software [57]. In
this retrospective cohort study, Allemand et al.
analyzed 29 normoandrogenic, ovulatory women
with tubal or male factor infertility and 10 PCOS
women with chronic anovulation and clinical or
biochemical hyperandrogenism. Mean FNPO
and the maximal number of follicles in a single
sonographic plane (FSSP) were determined by
3D TVUS, and the ovarian volume was determined by 2D TVUS simultaneously. The authors
posited a higher threshold of antral follicles (20
or more) for PCOS patients, which is considerably higher than that of the Rotterdam criteria.
The authors explained this discrepancy by the
identication of more follicles by 3D
US.Moreover, the authors found the agreement
level between the observers was 0.82. However,
the weaknesses of this study are the small number of patients, missing direct comparison to 2D
US, and low sensitivity (true positive rate) using
receiver-operating characteristics (ROCs). Two
studies comparing the follicle count between 3D
and 2D methodology in polycystic ovaries had
conicting results. While Battaglia et al. [64]
found no signicant difference in the mean number of follicles between 2D and 3D US calculations in females with polycystic ovaries, Nylander
etal. [72] found that 3D US counted more follicles than 2D US. The authors also found that
ovarian volume measurements by 2D TVUS was
1.48mL smaller than from 3D TVUS.In addition, there is increased stromal blood ow mea-

5 Ultrasound andOvarian Reserve
85
sured by Doppler and decrease in RI into the
ovary. This may be part of the enhancement of
production of androgens.
According to the AEPS, the literature suggests
that 3D ultrasonography holds promise in the
assessment of PCOM but states that more studies
are needed before AEPS can recommend its routine use.
According to most publications dealing with
3D US in PCOS patients, there is a broad agreement about increased ovarian volume of polycystic ovaries [64, 66]. According to AEPS, the mean
ovarian volume ranges from 10.6 and 16.7mL in
female with polycystic ovaries compare to 5.2 to
8.7 mL in healthy female of reproductive age
[59]. Pascual etal [63] and Battaglia etal. [64]
found strong correlation in ovarian volume calculations between 3D and 2D ultrasonography;
however, AEPS stated that the discrepancy in
overall ovarian size between the two studies (3D
US measurements: 12.6 vs 13.2 P<0.05, respectively) was signicant, suggesting technical and
interobserver variability. Despite this observation, AEPS did not recommend against using 3D
US in determining ovarian volume for the diagnosis of PCOS.Conclusively, AEPS highly recommends the use of in-house reference normal
ovarian volume values but recommends the existing ovarian volume ≥10cm3 criteria determine
by either 2D or 3D US if in-house reference normal values are unavailable.
Nevertheless, there is still disagreement
regarding ovarian vascularity, stromal changes,
and cutoff values for antral follicles. More about
PCOS is discussed in Chap. 6.
Antral Follicle Count andSonoAVC
The antral follicle count in 2D and 3D are generally similar although 3D ultrasound is superior
for the high antral follicle population. In the
inversion mode, follicles will appear white and
can be counted easily. Image or volume rotation
using the cine-loop facilitates the process (see
Fig. 5.2a). Assisted reproductive techniques
including invitro fertilization (IVF) and ovulation induction require close monitoring of follic-
ular development. Follicular development is
commonly assessed with transvaginal ultrasounds during which each follicle is measured in
two or three dimensions. As there are often more
than 10–20 follicles, this is very time-consuming.
In addition, follicular borders are irregular, and
hence, this method has poor reproducibility and
is often an inaccurate assessment of follicular
volume. A software program called the automated follicular assessment using segmental
topology or FAST program was developed to
automate the follicular measurements. Therefore,
our objective was to determine the accuracy,
reproducibility, and efciency of this novel program. This will be discussed further in another
chapter.
One disadvantage of 2D ultrasonography for
antral follicle counts involves inter- and intraobserver reproducibility. Of note, only a handful of
studies compare the accuracy of ultrasound in
regard to AFC and inter-/intraobserver reliability.
Scheffer etal. [73] described the value of AFC
determined by AVC needed for the improvement
of standardization. They compared healthy volunteers with proven fertility to patients visiting
an infertility clinic. For each patient, 2D or 3D
TVUS was conducted for AFC (2–10mm), and
interobserver reliability was calculated. Both
techniques were adequate when only a few follicles were present; however, when higher AFCs
occurred, the reproducibility decreased with the
2D technique. In addition to this report, studies
by the group of Raine-Fenning [33, 70, 71] demonstrated an improvement of interobserver/
intraobserver reliability by the application of 3D
methods (by automated systems, such as
SonoAVC).
Research has been conducted to evaluate if
AFCs vary at different point in the menstrual
cycle and if ultrasonographic markers of ovarian
reserve differ between the left and right ovary.
Interestingly, Deb etal. found that small antral
follicles (≤6.0mm) calculated using 3D US displayed little intra-cycle variation, while large
AFC (>6.0 mm) and ovarian volume revealed
signicant intra-cycle variation [12]. Though
some studies found there was no signicant difference in AFC between the right and left ovary

86
L. A. Stadtmauer et al.
[74, 75], most studies, especially those with
larger sample sizes and utilizing 3D US, found
that AFC was higher in the right ovary than the
left [76, 77]. For instance, in a study of 1423
female of reproductive age, Korsholm et al.
found that the right ovarian volume was larger
than the left, AFC was higher in the right in
those with higher AMH, and almost half of
those with polycystic ovarian morphology in
one ovary, more so in the right ovary than the
left [78]. When measured with 3D US, Deb
etal. also found that there is a signicant difference in ovarian volume, total AFC of each ovary,
and antral follicles >6.0mm between the right
and left ovary within an individual [79]. These
studies stress the importance of performing a
full characterization of both ovaries when scanning patients.
The SonoAVC software is especially designed
for the automatic detection of multifollicular
growth and to overcome the aforementioned
problems of follicle observation by 2D US [32,
34, 70, 80–86]. This software allows not only the
display of single follicles in 3D but also automatically calculates the number and volume of
hypoechoic structures in a 3D echo-derived data
set; furthermore, it provides estimations regarding the absolute dimensions of follicles. The only
necessary requirement is adjustment of the ROI
box over the entire ovary to include only the
information which is needed for calculation and
to check during post-processing. Measurements
are based on calculation of the largest diameters
in three orthogonal planes: the mean follicle
diameter, the follicular volume, and the volumebased diameter of the follicle. Thus, the volume
is calculated via the voxel count within
hypoechoic structures. The true volume can be
measured, and SonoAVC calculates the follicle
diameter by rendering the follicle as a perfect
sphere. This results in the visualization of sonoanatomic details, which could not previously be
recognized. A major advantage of this sonoanatomic rendering is that individual structures
are color-coded (see Fig.5.4) allowing the exact
count, which is needed for the determination of
factors such as ovarian reserve. More about
SonoAVC is discussed in Chap. 17.
AFC, AMH, andOocyte
Cryopreservation
Oocyte or embryo preservation after ovarian stimulation, ovarian tissue cryopreservation, invitro maturation (IVM) of cumulo-oocyte complexes, and
downregulation of ovaries with gonadotropinreleasing hormone analogue during chemotherapy
are methods that have been attempted to preserve
fertility in the female oncological patient. Though
some of these options are controversial or experimental, others are more established for fertility
preservation. The American Society of Clinical
Oncology and the American Society for
Reproductive Medicine state that ovarian stimulation for embryo or mature oocyte cryopreservation
is the most established strategy to result in a future
pregnancy [87, 88]. In those with estrogen-sensitive
tumors or those who cannot delay cancer therapy,
transvaginal retrieval of immature oocytes within
IVM of oocytes may be considered. In this method,
immature oocytes are retrieved from unstimulated
postpubertal ovaries and subsequently matured in
the laboratory for mature oocyte or embryo cryopreservation [88]. In a study by Sonigo etal., the
researcher found that 20 antral follicles and 3.7ng/
ml AMH were the thresholds for cryopreservation
of at least 10 meiosis II oocytes after IVM, while
having ≤19 follicles or ≤3.0ng/ml AMH was asso-
ciated with a risk of cryopreservation of ≤2 mature
oocytes [89]. However, due to limited studies on the
safety and efcacy of this approach in the oncological patient, this technique is still considered investigational [88]. More studies need to be done to assess
the efcacy and safety of this method and the potential of these oocytes after cryopreservation in
patients with malignancies.
Conclusion
AFC is highly predictive for the ovarian reserve
reected by the number of oocytes retrieved on
stimulation and strongly associated with the
serum AMH level. This is helpful for counselling
the patient and determining the stimulation protocol. The estimation of the ovarian response by
US is simple and noninvasive; thus, it is an advis-

5 Ultrasound andOvarian Reserve
87
able procedure. The reliability of this method is
increased with 3D instruments. There are several
advantages of the new 3D US techniques.
Software systems such as SonoAVC allow
decreased inter- and intrapersonal variability in
the processing, readout, and interpretation of
ultrasound scans. While manual post-processing
of US scans is required, this can be performed
later once the patient is off the table. The ultrasound denition of PCOS may need modication
to incorporate the 3D automated technology.
More studies need to be done to evaluate the
potential of cryopreservation of ovarian tissue or
immature oocytes in the oncological patient.
References
1. Fleming R, Seifer D, Frattarelli JR, Ruman
J. Assessing ovarian response: antral follicle count
versus anti-Müllerian hormone. Reprod Biomed
Online. 2015;31:486–96.
2. Nelson SM. Biomarkers of ovarian response: current
and future applications. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:963–9.
3. Faddy MJ, Gosden RG, Gougeon A, Richardson SJ,
Nelson JF.Accelerated disappearance of ovarian fol-
licles in mid-life: implications for forecasting meno-
pause. Hum Reprod. 1992;7:1342–6.
4. Robertson DM, Lee CH, Baerwald A.Interrelationships
among reproductive hormones and antral follicle
count in human menstrual cycles. Endocr Connect.
2016;6:98–107.
5. La Marca A, Argento C, Sighinol G, Grisendi V,
Carbone M, D’Ippolito G, et al. Possibilities and
limits of ovarian reserve testing in ART.Curr Pharm
Biotechnol. 2012;13:398–408.
6. Hendriks DI, Mol BW, Bancsi LF, Te Velde ER,
Broekmans FI.Antral follicle count in the prediction
of poor ovarian reserve and IVF outcome after invitro
fertilization: a meta-analysis and comparison with
basal FSH level. Fertil Steril. 2005;83:291–310.
7. Broekmans FJ, de Ziegler D, Howles CM, Gougeon A,
Trew G, Olivennes F.The antral follicle count: practi-
cal recommendations for better standardization. Fertil
Steril. 2010;94:1044–51.
8. Muttukrishna S, McGarrigle H, Wakim R, Khadum I,
Ranieri DM, Sethal P. Antral follicle count, antimul-
lerian hormone and inhibin B: predictors of ovarian
response in assisted reproductive technology? BJOG.
2005;112:1384–90.
9. Johnson NP, Bagrie EM, Coomarasamy A,
Bhattacharya S, Shelling AN, Jessop S, etal. Ovarian
reserve tests for predicting fertility outcomes for
assisted reproductive technology: the International
Systematic Collaboration of Ovarian Reserve
Evaluation protocol for a systematic review of ovarian
reserve test accuracy. BJOG. 2006;113:1472–80.
10. Jayaprakasan K, Deb S, Batcha M, Hopkisson J,
Johnson I, Campbell B, et al. The cohort of antral
follicles measuring 2-6 mm reects the quantitative
status of ovarian reserve as assessed by serum levels
of anti-Mullerian hormone and response to controlled
ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1775–81.
11. Jayaprakasan K, Chan Y, Islam R, Haoula Z,
Hopkisson J, Coomarasamy A, et al. Prediction of
in vitro fertilization outcome at different antral follicle count thresholds in a prospective cohort of 1,012
women. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:657–63.
12. Deb S, Campbell BK, Clewes JS, Pincott-Allen C,
Raine-Fenning NJ. Intracycle variation in number
of antral follicles stratied by size and in endocrine
markers of ovarian reserve in women with normal ovulatory menstrual cycles. Ultrasound Obstet
Gynecol. 2013;41:216–22.
13. Fratterelli JL, Lauria-Costab DF, Miller BT, Bergh
PA, Scott RT. Basal antral follicle number and mean
ovarian diameter predict cycle cancellation and ovarian responsiveness in assisted reproductive technology cycles. Fertil Steril. 2000;7:512–7.
14. Danninger B, Brunner M, Obruca A, Feichtinger
W.Prediction of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome
by ultrasound volumetric assessment [corrected] of
baseline ovarian volume prior to stimulation. Hum
Reprod. 1996;11:1597–9.
15. Akbariasbagh F, Lorzadeh N, Azmoodeh A,
Ghaseminejad A, Mohamadpoor J, Kazemirad
S. Association among diameter and volume of follicles, oocyte maturity, and competence in intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Minerva Ginecol.
2015;87(5):397–403.
16. Jayaprakasan K, Hilwah N, Kendall NR, Hopkisson
JF, Campbell BK, Johnson IR, etal. Does 3D ultrasound offer any advantage in the pretreatment assessment of ovarian reserve and prediction of outcome
after assisted reproduction treatment? Hum Reprod.
2007;22:1932–41.
17. Hsu A, Arny M, Knee AB, Bell C, Cook E, Novak AL,
etal. Antral follicle count in clinical practice: analyzing clinical relevance. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:474–9.
18. van der Stege JG, van der Linden PJ.Useful predictors of ovarian stimulation response in women undergoing invitro fertilization. Gynecol Obstet Investig.
2001;52:43–6.
19. Karande VC.Managing and predicting low response
to standard invitro fertilization therapy: a review of
the options. Treat Endocrinol. 2003;2:257–72.
20. Broekmans FJ, Knauff EA, te Velde ER, Macklon
NS, Fausser BC. Female reproductive ageing: current knowledge and future trends. Trends Endocrinol
Metab. 2007;18:58–65.
21. Broer SL, Mol BWJ, Hendriks D, Broekmans
FJM.The role of antimullerian hormone in prediction
of outcome after IVF: comparison with the antral follicle count. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:705–14.
22. Riggs RM, Duran EH, Baker MW, Kimble TD,
Hobeika E, Yin L, etal. Assessment of ovarian reserve
with antimullerian hormone: a comparison of the
predictive value of antimullerian hormone, follicle-

88
L. A. Stadtmauer et al.
stimulating hormone, inhibin B and age. Am J Obstet
Gynecol. 2008;199:202e1–8.
23. Hansen KR, Hodnett GM, Knowlton N, Craig
LB.Correlation of ovarian reserve tests with histologically determined primordial follicle number. Fertil
Steril. 2011;95:855–64.
24. Iliodromiti S, Kelsey TW, Wu O, Anderson RA,
Nelson SM.The predictive accuracy of anti- Mullerian
hormone for live birth after assisted conception: a
systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.
Hum Reprod Update. 2015;20:560–57.
25. Brodin T, Hadziosmanovic N, Berglund L, Oloysson
M, Holte J.Comparing four ovarian reserve markersassociations with ovarian response and live births after
assisted reproduction. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand.
2015 Oct;94(10):1056–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/
aogs.12710.
26. Kedem A, Haas J, Geva LL, Yerushalmi G, Gilboa Y,
Kanety H, etal. Ongoing pregnancy rates in women
with low and extremely low AMH levels. A multivariate analysis of 769 cycles. PLoS One. 2013;8:e81629.
27. Reichman DE, Goldschlag D, Rosenwaks Z. Value
of antimullerian hormone as a prognostic indicator of in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril.
2014;101:1012–8.
28. Jayaprakasan K, Al-Hasie H, Jayaprakasan R,
Campbell B, Hopkisson J, Johnson I, etal. The threedimensional ultrasonographic ovarian vascularity
of women developing poor ovarian response during
assisted reproduction treatment and its predictive
value. Fertil Steril. 2009 Dec;92(6):1862–9.
29. ASRM Practice Guidelines. Testing and interpreting
measures of ovarian reserve: a committee opinion.
Fertil Steril. 2015;103(3):e9–e17.
30. Lass A, Brinsden P. The role of ovarian volume
in reproductive medicine. Hum Reprod Update.
1999;5:256–66.
31. McDougall MJ, Tan SL, Jacobs HS. IVF and the
ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Hum Reprod.
1992;5:597–600.
32. Ata B, Tulandi T. Ultrasound automated volume
calculation in reproduction and in pregnancy. Fertil
Steril. 2011;95:2163–70.
33. Raine-Fenning N, Jayaprakasan K, Clewes J, Joergner
I, Bonaki SD, Chamberlain S, etal. SonoAVC: a novel
method of automatic volume calculation. Ultrasound
Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31:691–6.
34. Rodriguez-Fuentes A, Hernandez J, Garcia-Guzman
R, Chinea E, Iaconianni L, Palumbo A.Prospective
evaluation of automated follicle monitoring in 58
in vitro fertilization cycles: follicular volume as
a new indicator of oocyte maturity. Fertil Steril.
2010;93:616–20.
35. Wertheimer A, Nagar R, Oron G, Meizner I, Fisch B,
Ben-Haroush A. Fertility treatment outcomes after
follicle tracking with standard 2-dimensional sonography versus 3-dimensional sonography-based automated volume count: prospective study. J Ultrasound
Med. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.14421.
36. Hernández J, Rodríguez-Fuentes A, Puopolo M,
Palumbo A. Follicular Volume Predicts Oocyte
Maturity: A Prospective Cohort Study Using ThreeDimensional Ultrasound and SonoAVC. Reprod Sci.
2016;23(12):1639–43.
37. Jadaon JE, Ben-Ami M, Haddad S, Radin O, Bar- Ami
S, Younis JS.Prospective evaluation of early follicular
ovarian stromal blood ow in infertile women undergoing IVF-ET treatment. Gynecol Endocrinol.
2012;28(5):356–9. https://doi.org/10.3109/09513590
.2011.633659.
38. Vural F, Vural B, Doger E, Çakıroğlu Y, Çekmen
M.Perifollicular blood ow and its relationship with
endometrial vascularity, follicular uid EG-VEGF,
IGF-1, and inhibin-a levels and IVF outcomes. J
Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33:1355–62.
39. Chui DK, Pugh ND, Walker SM, Gregory L, Shaw
RW. Follicular vascularity--the predictive value of
transvaginal power Doppler ultrasonography in an
in-vitro fertilization programme: a preliminary study.
Hum Reprod. 1997;12:191–6.
40. Borini A, Tallarini A, Maccolini A, etal. Perifollicular
vascularity monitoring and scoring: a clinical tool
for selecting the best oocyte. Eur J Obstet Gynecol
Reprod Biol. 2004;115:102–5.
41. Huyghe S, Verest A, Thijssen A, Ombelet W. The
prognostic value of perifollicular blood ow in the
outcome after assisted reproduction: a systematic
review. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2017;9(3):153–6..
Review
42. Firouzabadi RD, Sekhavat L, Javedani M.The effect
of ovarian cyst aspiration on IVF treatment with
GnRH.Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2010 Mar;281(3):545–9.
43. Okaro E, Condous G, Khalid A, Timmerman D, Ameye
L, Van Huffel S, et al. The use of ultrasound-based
‘soft markers’ for the prediction of pelvic pathology
in women with chronic pelvic pain, can we reduce the
need for laparoscopy? BJOG. 2006;113:251–6.
44. Raine-Fenning N, Jayaprakasan K, Deb S. Threedimensional ultrasonographic characteristics of
endometriomata. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol.
2008;31:718–24.
45. Asch E, Levine D.Variations in appearance of endometriomas. J Ultrasound Med. 2007;26:993–1002.
46. Kumfer MC, Schwimer SR, Lebovic J.Transvaginal
sonographic appearance of endometriomas: spectrum
of ndings. J Ultrasound Med. 1992;11:129–33.
47. Somigliana E, Vercellini P, Viganó P, Ragni G,
Crosignani PG. Should endometriomas be treated
before IVF-ICSI cycles? Hum Reprod Update.
2006;12:57–64.
48. Liu Z, Yang F, Zhang Y, Yu H, Zhu H, Yang R, Fan
L. Conventional, Doppler and contrast-enhanced
ultrasonography in differential diagnosis of ovarian
masses. Cell Physiol Biochem. 2016;39(6):2398–408.
49. Balen A, Michelmore K. What is polycystic ovary
syndrome? Are national views important? Hum
Reprod. 2002;17:2219–27.
50. Polson DW, Adams J, Wadsworth J, Franks
S. Polycystic ovaries--a common nding in normal
women. Lancet. 1988;1:870–2.
51. Alborzi S, Khodaee R, Parsanejad ME. Ovarian
size and response to laparoscopic ovarian electro-

5 Ultrasound andOvarian Reserve
89
cauterization in polycystic ovarian disease. Int J
Gynaecol Obstet. 2001;74:269–74.
52. Amer SA, Li TC, Bygrave C, Sprigg A, Saravelos H,
Cooke ID. An evaluation of the inter-observer and
intra-observer variability of the ultrasound diagnosis
of polycystic ovaries. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:1616–
22; Jacobs HS. Polycystic ovaries and polycystic
ovary syndrome. Gynecol Endocrinol 1987;1:113–31.
Review.
53. Kousta E, White DM, Cela E, McCarthy MI, Franks
S. The prevalence of polycystic ovaries in women
with infertility. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:2720–3.
54. Dewailly D, Gronier H, Poncelet E, Robin G, Leroy
M, Pigny P, etal. Diagnosis of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS): revisiting the threshold values of follicle count on ultrasound and of the serum AMH level
for the denition of polycystic ovaries. Hum Reprod.
2011;26(11):3123–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/hum-
rep/der297.. Epub 16 Sep 2011
55. Dewailly D, Lujan ME, Carmina E, Cedars MI,
Laven J, Norman RJ, et al. Denition and signicance of polycystic ovarian morphology: a task force
report from the Androgen Excess and Polycystic
Ovary Syndrome Society. Hum Reprod Update.
2013;20(3):334–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/
dmt061.
56. Rotterdam ESHRE/ASRM-Sponsored PCOS
Consensus Workshop Group. Revised 2003 consensus on diagnostic criteria and long-term health risks
related to polycystic ovary syndrome. Fertil Steril.
2004;81:19–25.
57. Allemand MC, Tummon IS, Phy JL, Foong SC,
Dumesic DA, Session DR. Diagnosis of polycystic
ovaries by three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound.
Fertil Steril. 2006;85:214–9.
58. He LR, Zhou LX, Pan RK, Zhang X.Clinical signicance of counting follicles in diagnosis of polycystic
ovary syndrome by the three-dimensional ultrasound
imaging with sonography based automated volume
calculation method. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi.
2011;46:350–4.
59. Goodman NF, Cobin RH, Futterweit W, Glueck
JS, Legro RS, Carmina E, American Association
of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE); American
College of Endocrinology (ACE); Androgen Excess
and PCOS Society (AES). American Association
of Clinical Endocrinologists, American College of
Endocrinology, and Androgen Excess and PCOS
Society Disease State Clinical Review: guide to the
best practices in the evaluation and treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome--part 1. Endocr Pract. 2015
Nov;21(11):1291–300.
60. Lam PM, Johnson IR, Raine-Fenning NJ. Threedimensional ultrasound features of the polycystic ovary
and the effect of different phenotypic expressions on
these parameters. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(12):3116–
23. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dem218.
61. Lam P, Raine-Fenning N, Cheung L, Haines C.Threedimensional ultrasound features of the polycystic
ovary in Chinese women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol.
2009;34(2):196–200. https://doi.org/10.1002/
uog.6442.
62. Sun L, Fu Q. Three-dimensional transrectal ultrasonography in adolescent patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome. Int J Gynecol Obstet.
2007;98(1):34–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijgo.2007.02.024.
63. Pascual MA, Graupera B, Hereter L, Tresserra F,
Rodriguez I, Alcázar JL. Assessment of ovarian
vascularization in the polycystic ovary by threedimensional power Doppler ultrasonography.
Gynecol Endocrinol. 2008;24(11):631–6. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09513590802308099.
64. Battaglia C, Battaglia B, Morotti E, Paradisi R, Zanetti
I, Meriggiola MC, etal. Two- and three-dimensional
sonographic and color Doppler techniques for diagnosis of polycystic ovary syndrome. J Ultrasound
Med. 2012;31(7):1015–24. https://doi.org/10.7863/
jum.2012.31.7.1015.
65. Peres Fagundes PA, Chapon R, Olsen PR, Schuster
AK, Mattia MM, Cunha-Filho JS.Evaluation of threedimensional SonoAVC ultrasound for antral follicle
count in infertile women: Its agreement with conventional two-dimensional ultrasound and serum levels
of anti-Müllerian hormone. Reprod Biol Endocrinol.
2017;15(1):1–7.
66. Järvelä IY, Mason HD, Sladkevicius P, Kelly S, Ojha
K, Campbell S, etal. Characterization of normal and
polycystic ovaries using three-dimensional power
Doppler ultrasonography. J Assist Reprod Genet.
2002;19:582–90.
67. Pan HA, Wu MH, Cheng YC, Li CH, Chang
FM. Quantication of Doppler signal in polycystic ovary syndrome using three-dimensional power
Doppler ultrasonography: a possible new marker for
diagnosis. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:201–6.
68. Jokubkiene L, Sladkevicius P, Valentin L. Number
of antral follicles, ovarian volume, and vascular indices in asymptomatic women 20 to 39 years old as
assessed by 3-Dimensional sonography. J Ultrasound
Med. 2012;31(10):1635–49. https://doi.org/10.7863/
jum.2012.31.10.1635.
69. Scheffer GJ, Broekmans FJ, Bancsi LF, Habbema
JD, Looman CW, Te Velde ER. Quantitative transvaginal two- and three-dimensional sonography of
the ovaries: reproducibility of antral follicle counts.
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002;20:270–5.
70. Raine-Fenning N, Jayaprakasan K, Chamberlain S,
Devlin L, Priddle H, Johnson I, etal. Automated measurements of follicle diameter: a chance to standardize? Fertil Steril. 2009;91:1469–72.
71. Raine-Fenning N, Jayaprakasan K, Deb S, Clewes J,
Joergner I, Dehghani Bonaki S, Johnson I.Automated
follicle tracking improves measurement reliability
in patients undergoing ovarian stimulation. Reprod
Biomed Online. 2009;18(5):658–63.
72. Nylander M, Frøssing S, Bjerre AH, Chabanova E,
Clausen HV, Faber J, et al. Ovarian morphology in
polycystic ovary syndrome: estimates from 2D and
3D ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging and

90
L. A. Stadtmauer et al.
their correlation to anti-Müllerian hormone. Acta
Radiol. 2017 Aug;58(8):997–1004.
73. Scheffer GJ, Broekmans FJ, Dorland M, Habbema
JD, Looman CW, Velde ER. Antral follicle counts
by transvaginal ultrasonography are related to age
in women with proven natural fertility. Fertil Steril.
1999;72(5):845–51.
74. Baerwald AR, Adams GP, Pierson RA.A new model
for ovarian follicular development during the human
menstrual cycle. Fertil Steril. 2003;80(1):116–22.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(03)00544-2.
75. Jokubkiene L, Sladkevicius P, Valentin L. Number
of antral follicles, ovarian volume, and vascular
indices in asymptomatic women 20 to 39 years old
as assessed by 3-Dimensional sonography: A prospective cross-sectional study. J Ultrasound Med.
2012;31(10):1635–49. https://doi.org/10.7863/
jum.2012.31.10.1635.
76. Alserri A, Kuriya A, Holzer H, Tulandi
T. Lateralization of ovarian follicles. Gynecol
Obstet Investig. 2014;77(2):117–20. https://doi.
org/10.1159/000358395.
77. Köninger A, Koch L, Edimiris P, Nießen S,
Kasimir-Bauer S, Kimmig R, et al. Intraindividual
right–left comparison of sonographic features in
polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) diagnosis. Eur J
Obstet Gynecol Reproduct Biol. 2014;181:124–9.
78. Korsholm AS, Hvidman HW, Bentzen JG, Nyboe
Andersen A, Birch PK. Left-right differences in
ovarian volume and antral follicle count in 1423
women of reproductive age. Gynecol Endocrinol.
2017;33(4):320–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/09513590
.2016.1259406.
79. Deb S, Kannamannadiar J, Campbell BK, Clewes
JS, Raine-Fenning NJ. The interovarian variation
in three-dimensional ultrasound markers of ovarian
reserve in women undergoing baseline investigation
for subfertility. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(2):667–72.
80. Deutch TD, Joergner I, Matson DO, Oehninger S,
Bocca S, Hoenigmann D, et al. Automated assessment of ovarian follicles using a novel threedimensional ultrasound software. Fertil Steril. 2009
Nov;92(5):1562–8.
81. Raine-Fenning N, Deb S, Jayaprakasan K, Clewes J,
Hopkisson J, Campbell B. Timing of oocyte maturation and egg collection during controlled ovarian
stimulation: a randomized controlled trial evaluating manual and automated measurements of follicle
diameter. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:184–8.
82. Ben-Haroush A, Farhi J, Zahalka Y, Sapir O, Meizner
I, Fisch B. Small antral follicle count (2-5 mm)
and ovarian volume for prediction of pregnancy in
in vitro fertilization cycles. Gynecol Endocrinol.
2012:28(6)432–5.
83. Deb S, Jayaprakasan K, Campbell BK, Clewes JS,
Johnson IR, Raine-Fenning NJ. Intraobserver and
interobserver reliability of automated antral follicle counts made using three-dimensional ultrasound and SonoAVC. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol.
2009;33:477–83.
84. Deb S, Campbell BK, Clewes JS, Raine-Fenning
NJ.Quantitative analysis of antral follicle number and
size: a comparison of two-dimensional and automated
three-dimensional ultrasound techniques. Ultrasound
Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35:354–60.
85. Jayaprakasan K, Campbell BK, Clewes JS, Johnson
IR, Raine-Fenning NJ.Three-dimensional ultrasound
improves the interobserver reliability of antral follicle
counts and facilitates increased clinical work ow.
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31:439–44.
86. Forman RG, Robinson J, Yudkin P, Egan D, Reynolds
K, Barlow DH.What is the true follicular diameter:
an assessment of the reproducibility of transvaginal
ultrasound monitoring in stimulated cycles. Fertil
Steril. 1991;56:89–92.
87. Loren AW, Mangu PB, Beck LN, Brennan L,
Magdalinski AJ, Partridge A, et al. Fertility preservation for patients with cancer: American Society of
Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update.
J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(19):2500–10. https://doi.
org/10.1200/jco.2013.49.2678.
88. Practice Committee of American Society for
Reproductive Medicine. Fertility preservation
in patients undergoing gonadotoxic therapy or
gonadectomy: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril.
2013;100(5):1214–23.
89. Sonigo C, Simon C, Boubaya M, Benoit A, Sifer C,
Sermondade N, etal. What threshold values of antral
follicle count and serum AMH levels should be considered for oocyte cryopreservation after invitro maturation? Hum Reprod. 2016;31(7):1493–500.
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
