Three-dimensional ultrasound in reproductive medicine

References

• Kyei-Mensah A, Zaidi J, Pittrof R, Shaker A, Campbell S, Tan SL. Transvaginal three-dimensional ultrasound: reproducibil- ity of ovarian and endometrial volume measurements. Fertil Steril 1996; 66:718–722.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feichtinger W. Transvaginal three-dimensional imaging for evaluation and treatment of infertility. In: Merz E, editor. 3D Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1998. pp 37–43.
   Google Scholar
• Poehl M, Hohlagschwandtner M, Doerner V, Dillinger B, Feichtinger W. Cumulus assessment by three-dimensional ultrasound for in vitro fertilization. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000;16:251–253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lass A, Skull J, McVeigh E, Margara R, Winston RM. Measurement of ovarian volume by transvaginal sonography before ovulation induction with human menopausal gonado- tropin for in vitro fertilization can predict poor response. Hum Reprod 1997;12:294–247.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oyesanya OA, Parsons JH, Collins WP, Campbell S. Total ovarian volume before human chorionic gonadotropin admin- istration for ovulation induction may predict the hyperstimulation syndrome. Hum Reprod 1995;10:3211–3212.
   Google Scholar
• Kupesic S, Kurjak A. Predictors of in vitro fertilisation outcome by three-dimensional ultrasound. Hum Reprod 2002;17:950–955.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kupesic S, Kurjak A, Bjelos D, Vujisic S. Three-dimensional ultrasonographic ovarian measurements and in vitro fertiliza- tion outcome are related to age. Fertil Steril 2003;79(1):190– 197.
   Google Scholar
• Wu MH, Tang HH, Hsu CC, Wang ST, Huang KE. The role of three-dimensional ultrasonographic images in ovarian measurement. Fertil Steril 1998;69:1152–1155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robert Y, Dubrulle F, Gaillandre L, Ardaens Y, Thomas- Desrousseauxe P, Lemaitre L. Ultrasound assessment kof ovarian stroma hypertrophy in hyperandrogenism and ovula- tion disorders: visual analysis versus computerized quantification. Fertil Steril 1995;64:307–312.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bonilla-Musoles F, Raga F, Osborne NG. Three-dimensional ultrasound evaluation of ovarian masses. Gynecol Oncol 1995;59:129–135.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Battaglia C, Artini PG, D’Ambrogio G, Genazzani AD, Genazzani AR. The role of color Doppler imaging in the diagnosis of polycystic ovary syndrome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995;172:108–113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaidi J Campbell S, Pittrof R, Kyei-Mensah A, Shaker A, Jacobs HS, Tan SL. Ovarian stromal blood flow in women with polycystic ovaries—a possible new marker for diagnosis? Hum Reprod 1995;10:1992–1996.
   Google Scholar
• Kurjak A, Kupesic S, Anic T, Kosuta D. Three-dimensional ultrasound and power Doppler improve the diagnosis of ovarian lesions. Gynecol Oncol 2000;76:28–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feichtinger W. Follicle aspiration with interactive three- dimensional digital imaging (Voluson*): a step toward real- time puncturing under three-dimensional ultrasound control. Fertil Steril 1998;70:374–377.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinraub Z, Maymon R, Shulman A, Bukovsky J, Kratochwil A, Lee A, Herman A. Three-dimensional saline contrast rendering of uterine cavity pathology. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996;8:277–282.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ayida G, Kennedy S, Barlow D, Chamberlain P. Conven- tional sonography for uterine cavity assessment: a comparison of conventional two-dimensional with three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound; a pilot study. Fertil Steril 1996;66:848–850.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kiyokawa K, Masuda H, Fuyuki T, Koseki M, Uchida N, Fukuda T, Anemiya K, Shouka K, Suzuki K. Three- dimensional hysterosalpingo-cnotrast sonography (3D Hy- CoSy) as an outpatient procedure to assess infertile women: a pilot study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000;16:648–654.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sladkevicius P, Ojha K, Campbell S, Nargund G. Three- dimensional power Doppler imaging in the asssessment of Fallopian tube patency. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000;16:644–647.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Letterie GS. Three-dimensional ultrasound guided embryo transfe: A preliminary study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192:1983–1988.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gonen Y, Caspar RF. Prediction of implantation by the sonographic appearance of the endometrium during con- trolled ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transfer 1990;7:146–152.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fleischer AC, Herbert CM, Sacks GA, Wentz AC, Entman SS, James AE Jr. Sonography of the endometrium during conception and nonconception cycles of in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 1986;46:442–447.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kyei-Mensah A, Maconochie N, Zaidi J, Pittrof R, Campbell S, Tan SL. Transvaginal three-dimensional ultra- sound: reproducibility of ovarian and endometrial volume measurements. Fertil Steril 1996;66:718–722.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee A, Sator M, Kratochwil A, Deutinger J, Vytiska- Binsdorfer E, Bernaschek G. Endometrial volume change during spontaneous menstrual cycles: volumetry by transva- ginal three-dimensional ultrasound. Fertil Steril 1997;68:831–835.
   Google Scholar
• Riccabona M, Nelson TR, Pretorius DH. Three-dimensional ultrasound: accuracy of distance and volume measurements. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996;4:29–34.
   Google Scholar
• Yaman C, Ebner T, Sommergruber M, Hartl J, Polz W, Tews G. Three-dimensional endometrial volume estimation as a predictor of pituitary down-regulation in an IVF-embryo transfer programme. Hum Reprod 2000;15:1698–1702.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedler S, Shenker JG, Herman A, Lewin A The role of ultrasonography in the evaluation of endometrial receptivity following assisted reproductive treatments: a critical review. Hum Reprod 1996;2:323–335.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kupesic S, Bekavac I, Bjelos D, Kurjak A. Assessment of endometrial receptivity by transvaginal color Doppler and three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasonography in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization procedures. J Ultrasound Med 2001;20:125–134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glissant A, De Mouzon J, Frydman R. Ultrasound study of the endometrium in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril 1985;44:786–790.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonen Y, Casper RF, Jacobson W, Blankier J. Endometrial thickness and growth during ovarian stimulation. A possible predictor of implantation in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1989;52:446–450.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Check JH, Nowroozi K, Choe J, Dietterich C. Influence of endometrial thickness and echogenic patterns on pregnancy rate during in-vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1991;56:1173- 1175.
   Google Scholar
• Dickey RP, Olar TT, Curole DN, Taylor SN, Rye PH. Endometrial pattern and thickness associated with pregnancy outcome after assisted reproduction technologies. Hum Reprod 1992;7:418–421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdalla HI, Brooks AA, Johnson MR, Kirkland A, Thomas A, Studd JW. Endometrial thickness: a predictor of implantation in ovum recipients? Hum Reprod 1994;9:363–365.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noyes N, Liu HC, Sultan K, Schattman G, Rosenwaks Z. Endometrial thickness appears to be a significant factor in embryo implantation in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1995;10:919–922.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kupesic S, Kurjak A. Uterine and ovarian perfusion during the periovulatory period assessed by transvaginal color Doppler. Fertil Steril 1993;60:439–443.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welker B, Gembruch U, Diedrich K, al-Hasani S, Krebs D. Transvaginal sonography of the endometrium during ovum pickup in stimulated cycles for in-vitro fertilization. J Ultra- sound Med 1989;8:549–553.
   Google Scholar
• Khalifa E, Brzyski RG, Oehninger S, Acosta AA, Muasher SJ. Sonographic appearance of the endometrium: the predictive value for the outcome of in-vitro fertilization in stimulated cycles. Hum Reprod 1992;7:677–680.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oliveira JBA, Baruffi RLR, Mauri AL, Petersen CG, Campos MS, Franco JG Jr. Endometrial ultrasonography as a predictor of pregnancy in an in-vitro fertilization programme. Hum Reprod 1993;8:1312–1315.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coulam CB, Bustillo M, Soenksen DM, Britten S. Ultra- sonographic predictors of implantation after assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril 1994;62:1004–1010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bustillo M, Krysa LW, Coulam CB. Uterine receptivity in an oocyte donation programme. Hum Reprod 1995;10:442–445.
   Google Scholar
• Sundstrom P. Establishment of a successful pregnancy following in-vitro fertilization with an endometrial thickness of no more than 4 mm. Hum Reprod 1998;13:1550–1552.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turnbull LW, Rice CF, Horsmann A, Robinson J, Killick SR. Magnetic resonance imaging and transvaginal ultrasound of the uterus prior to embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 1994;9:2438–2443.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schild RL, Holthaus S, d0 Alquen J, Fimmers R, Dorn C, van der Ven H, Hansmann M. Quantitative assessment of subendometrial blood flow by three-dimensional-ultrasound is an important predictive factor of implantation in an in-vitro fertilization programme. Hum Reprod 2000;15:89–94.
   Google Scholar
• Schild RL, Indefrei D, Eschweiler S, van der Ven H, Fimmers R, Hansmann M. Three-dimensional endometrial volume calculation and pregnancy rate in an in-vitro fertiliza- tion programme. Hum Reprod 1999;14:1255–1258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raga F, Bonilla-Musoles F, Casan EM, Klein O, Bonilla F. Assessment of endometrial volume by three-dimensional ultrasound prior to embryo transfer: clues to endometrial receptivity. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2851–2854.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steer CV, Campbell S, Tan Sl, Crayford T, Mills C, Mason BA, Collins WP. The use of transvaginal color flow imaging after in vitro fertilization to identify optimum uterine condi- tions before embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 1992;57:372–376.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sterzik K, Grab D, Sasse V, Hutter W, Rosenbusch B, Terinde R. Doppler sonographic findings and their correlation with implantation and in an in-vitro fertilization program. Fertil Steril 1989;52:825–828.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steer CV, Tan SL, Dillon D, Mason BA, Campbell S. Vaginal color Doppler assessment of uterine artery impedance correlates with immunohistochemical markers of endometrial receptivity requied for the implantation of an embryo. Fertil Steril 1995;63:101–108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aytoz A, Ubaldi F, Tournaye H, Nagy ZP, Van Steirteghem A, Devroey P. The predictive value of uterine artery blood flow measurements for uterine receptivity in an intracyto- plasmatic sperm injection program. Fertil Steril 1997;68:935–937.
   Google Scholar
• Tekay A, Martikanien H, Jouppila P. Blood flow changes in uterine and ovarian vasculature and predictive value of transvaginal pulsed coluor Doppler ultrasonography in an in- vitro fertilization programe. Hum Reprod 1995;10:688–693.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bassil S, Margitte JP, Roth J, Nisolle M, Donnez J, Gordts S. Uterine vascularity during stimulation and its correlation with implantation and in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1995;10:1497–1501.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloechle M, Schveiner T, Kuchler I, Schurenkamper P, Lisse K. Color Doppler assessment of the ascendent uterine artery perfusion in an in-vitro fertilization – embryo transfer programme after pituitary desensitation and ovarian stimula- tion with human recombinant follicle stimulating hormone. Hum Reprod 1997;12:1772–1777.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cacciatore B, Simberg N, Fusaro P, Tiitinen A. Transvaginal Doppler study of uterine artery blood flow in in-vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril 1996;66:130–134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaidi J, Campbell S, Pittrof R, Tan SL. Endometrial thickness, morphology, vascular penetration and velocimetry in predicting implantation in an in-vitro fertilization program. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995;6:191–198.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kupesic S, Kurjak A, Vujisic S, Petrovic Z. Luteal phase defect: Comparison between Doppler velocimetry, histological and hormonal markers. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecology 1997;9:105–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz LB, Chiu, Courtney M, Krey L, Schmidt-Sarosi C. The embryo versus endometrium controversy revisited as it relates to predicting pregnancy outcome in in-vitro fertilization – embryo transfer cycles, Hum Reprod 1997;12:45–50.
   Google Scholar
• Applebaum M. The uterine biophysical profile. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995;5:67–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serafini P, Batzofin J, Nelson J, Olive D. Sonographic uterine predictors of pregnancy in women undergoing ovulation induction for assisted reproductive treatments. Fertil Steril 1994;62:815–822.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salle B, Bied-Damon V, Benchaib M, Desperes S, Gaucherand P, Rudigoz RC. Preliminary report on ultrasono- graphy and color Doppler uterine score to predict uterine receptivity in an in-vitro fertilization programme. Hum Reprod 1998;13:1669–1673.
   Google Scholar
• Narayan R, Goswamy RK. Transvaginal sonography of the uterine cavity with hysteroscopic correlation in the investiga- tion of infertility. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1993;3:129–135.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fedele L, Bianchi S, Dorta M, Brioschi D, Zanotti F, Verchellini P. Transvaginal sonography versus hysteroscopy in the diagnosis of uterine submucous myomas. Obstet Gynecol 1991;77:745–748.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kupesic S, Kurjak A, Bjelos D. The assessment of uterine lesions. In Kurjak A, Kupesic S, editors. Clinical Application of 3D Sonography. New York, London: The Parthenon Publishing Group; 2000. pp 55–66.
   Google Scholar
• Ashton D, Amin HK, Richart RM, Neuwirth RS. The incidence of asmyptomatic uterine anomalies in women undergoing transcervical tubal sterilization. Obstet Gynecol 1988;72:28–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sorensen S. Estimated prevalence of mulerian anomalies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1988;67:441–445.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaucherand P, Awada A, Rudigoz RC, Dargent D. Obste-trical prognosis of septate uterus: a plea for treatment of the septum. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1994;54:109–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kupesic S, Kurjak A. Septate uterus: detection and prediction of obstetrical complications by different forms of ultrasono- graphy. J Ultrasound Med 1998;17:631–636.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kupesic S, Kurjak A. Diagnosis and treatment outcome of the septate uterus. Croat Med J 1998;39:185–190.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fedele L, Arcaini L, Parazzini F, Vercellini P, Nola GD. Metroplastic hysteroscopy and fertility. Fertil Steril 1993;59:768–770.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Homer HA, Li TC, Cooke ID. The septate uterus: a review of management and reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril 2000; 73:1–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kupesic S, Kurjak A, Skenderovic S, Bjelos D. Screening for uterine abnormalities by three-dimensional ultrasound im- proves perinatal outcome. J Prenat Med 2002;30:9–17.
   Google Scholar
• Berridge D, Winter TC. Saline infusion sonohysterography: technique, indications and image findings. J Ultrasound Med 2004;23:97–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raine-Fenning N. The role of three-dimensional ultrasound in assisted reproduction treatment. Ultrasound Obstet Gyne- col 2004;23:317–322.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar