The Role of Ultrasound in Oocyte Donation Programs

  • Natan Haratz-Rubinstein
  • Ilan E. Timor-Tritsch


Transvaginal sonography (TVS) is not new to the infertility specialist. In the United States, the first subspeciality of obstetrics and gynecology to use the transvaginal sonographic scanning technique was infertility, employing it for monitoring ovulation and oocyte aspiration. TVS obviates the need for a full urinary bladder to image the pelvic and patient acceptance is much higher. When high-resolution probes were introduced, the clear and crisp pictures that were generated became the most important incentive for its use.


Obstet Gynecol Assisted Reproductive Technology Corpus Luteum Ectopic Pregnancy Uterine Artery 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Dudiak CM, Turner DA, Patel SK, Archie JT, Silver B, Norusis M. Uterine leiomyomas in the infertile patient: pre-operative localization with MR imaging versus Ultrasound and hysterosalpingography. Radiology. 1988; 167: 627–630.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fedele L, Biandi S, Dorta M, Zanotti F, Brioschi D, Carinelli S. Transvaginal ultrasonography in the differential diagnosis of adenomyoma versus leiomyoma. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992; 167: 603–606.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Drews M, Bergh PA, Masuka A, Sandier B, Birkenfeld, Deligdisch L. Preliminary observations on abnormal sequential histologic maturation of the human endometrium during “ controlled” ovarian hyperstimulation cycles. The 47th Annual Meeting of the American Fertility Society, Orlando, FL, October 21–24, 1991. Abstract P-139.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Garcia J, Acosta A, Hsiu JG, Jones HW, Advanced endometrial maturation after ovulation induction with human menopausal gonadotropin/human chorionic gonadotropin for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1984; 41: 31–PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davis OK, Berkley AS, Naus GJ, Cholst IN, Freedman KS. The incidence of luteal phase defect in normal, fertile women, determined by serial endometrial biopsies. Fertil Steril. 1989; 51: 582–586.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gonen Y, Casper RF. Prediction of implantation by the sonographic appearance of the endometrium during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization (IVF). J in Vitro Fert Embryo Transf. 1991; 8: 116–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shoham A, CiCarlo C, Patel A, Conway GS, Jacobs HS. Is it possible to run a successful ovulation induction program based solely on ultrasound monitoring? The importance of endometrial measurements. Fertil Steril. 1991; 56: 836–841.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Antinori S, Versaci C, Hosein Gholami G, Panci C, Caffa B. Oocyte donation in menopausal women. Hum Reprod. 1993; 8: 1487–1490.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shapiro H, Cowell C, Casper RF. The use of vaginal ultrasound for monitoring endometrial preparation in donor oocyte program. Fertil Steril. 1993; 59: 1055–1058.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abdalla HI, Brooks AA, Johnson MR, Kirkland A, Thomas A, Studd JWW. Endometrial thickness: a predictor of implantation in ovum recipients? Hum Reprod. 1994; 9: 363–365.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hoffman GE, Thie J, Scott RT, Navot D. Endometrial thickness is predictive of histologic endometrial maturation in woman undergoing hormone replacement for ovum donation. Fertil Steril. 1996; 66: 380–383.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dickey RP, Olar TT, Taylor SN, Curole DN, Matulich EM. Relationship of endometrial thickness and pattern to fecundity in ovulation induction cycles: effect of clomiphene citrate alone and in combination with human menopausal gonadotropins. Fertil Steril. 1993; 59: 756–760.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Noyes RW, Hertig AT, Rock J. Dating the endometrial biopsy. Fertil Steril. 1950; 1: 3–25.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fleischer AC, Kalemeris GC, Machina JE, Entman SS, James E. Sonographic depiction of normal and abnormal endometrium with histopathologic correlation. J Ultrasound Med. 1986; 5: 445–452.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Check JH, Nowroozi K, Choe J, Dietterich C. Influence of endometrial thickness and echo patterns on pregnancy rates during in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1991; 56: 1173–1175.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gonen Y, Casper RF, Jacobson W, Blankier J. Endometrial thickness and growth during ovarian stimulation: a possible predictor of implantation in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1989; 52: 446–450.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grunfeld L, Walker B, Bergh PA, Sandier B, Hofmann G, Navot D. High resolution endovaginal ultrasonography of the endometrium: a noninvasive test for endometrial adequacy. Obstet Gynecol. 1991; 78: 200–204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rogers PAW, Polson D, Murphy CR, Hosie M, Susil B, Leoni M. Correlation of endometrial histology, morphometry, and ultrasound appearance after different stimulation protocols for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1991; 55: 583–587.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sakamoto C, Yoshimutu K, Nakamura G, Ootsuka H, Uoshida K. Sonographic study of the endometrial responses to ovarian hormones in patients receiving ovarian stimulation. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1988; 27: 407–414.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ueno J, Oehninger S, Brzyski RG, Acosta AA, Philput CB, Muasher SJ. Ultrasonographic appearance of the endometrium in natural and stimulated invitro fertilization cycles and its correlation with outcome. Hum Reprod. 1991; 6: 901–904.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Khalifa E, Brzyski RG, Oehninger S, Acosta AA, Muasher SJ. Sonographic appearance of the endometrium: the predictive value for the outcome of invitro fertilization in stimulated cycles. Hum Reprod. 1992; 7: 677–680.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Al-Shawaf T, Yang D, Al-Magid Y, Seaton A, Iketubosin F, Craft I. Ultrasonic monitoring during replacement of frozen/thawed embryos in natural and hormone replacement cycles. Hum Reprod. 1993; 8: 2068–2074.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sher G, Herbert C, Maasanari G, Jacobs MH. Assessment of the late proliferative phase endometrium by ultrasonography in patients undergoing in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVT/IVF). Hum Reprod. 1991; 6: 232–237.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sher G, Dodge S, Maassarani G, Nutzen V, Louves D, Feinman M. Management of suboptimal sonographic endometrial patterns in patients undergoing in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 1993; 8: 347–349.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Goswamy RK, Steptoe PC. Doppler ultrasound studies of the uterine artery in spontaneous ovarian cycles. Hum Reprod. 1988; 3: 721–726.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fleischer AC. Ultrasound imaging-2000: assessment of utero-ovarian blood flow with transvaginal color Doppler sonography; potential clinical applications in infertility. Fertil Steril. 1991; 55: 684–691.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Santolaya-Forgas J. Physiology of the menstrual cycle by sonography. J Ultrasound Med. 1992; 11: 139–142.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Scholtes MCW, Wladimiroff JW, van Rijen HJM, Hop WCJ. Uterine and ovarian flow velocity waveforms in the normal menstrual cycle: a transvaginal Doppler study. Fertil Steril. 1989; 52: 981–985.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Williams MF. The vascular architecture of the rat uterus as influenced by estrogen and progesterone. Am J Anat. 1948; 83: 247–307. Program Supplement, 1990, p 530.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Moll W, Gotz R. Pressure-diameter curves of mesometrial arteries of guinea pigs demonstrate a non-muscular, oestrogen-inducible mechanism of lumen regulation. Pflugers Arch. 1985; 404: 332–336.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lantta M, Karkahainen J, Lehtovirta P. Progesterone and estradiol receptors in the cytosol of the human uterine artery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1983; 147: 627–633.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Greiss FC, Anderson SG. Effects of ovarian hormones on the uterine vascular bed. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1970; 107: 829–836.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Haywood JR, Shaffer RA, Fastenow C, Fink GD, Brody MJ. Regional blood flow measurement with pulsed Doppler flowmeter in conscious rat. Am J Physiol. 1981; 241: H273–H278.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    de Zeigler D, Bessis R, Frydman R. Vascular resistance of uterine arteries. Fertil Steril. 1991; 55(4): 775–779.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zalud I, Kurjak A. The assessment of luteal blood flow in pregnant and nonpregnant women by transvaginal color Doppler. J Perinat Med. 1990; 18: 215.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Steer CV, Campbell S, Pampiglione JS, Kindsland CR, Mason BA, Collins WP. Transvaginal colour flow imaging of the uterine arteries during the ovarian and menstrual cycle. Hum Reprod. 1990; 5: 391–395.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Goswamy RK, Williams G, Steptoe PC. Decreased uterine perfusion— a cause of infertility. Hum Reprod. 1988; 3: 955.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Baber RJ, McSweeney MB, Gill RW, et al. Transvaginal pulsed Doppler ultrasound assessment of blood flow to the corpus luteum in IVF patients following embryo transfer. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1988; 95: 1226.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tan SL, Steer C, Mills C, Rizk B, Mason BA, Campbell S. Vaginal color Doppler assessment of the day of embryo transfer (ET) accurately predicts patients in an in-vitro fertilization (IVF) programme with suboptimal uterine perfusion who fail to become pregnant. Presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of The American Fertility Society, Washington, D.C., October 15–18, 1990. Abstract O-070, page 530.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Strohmer H, Merczeg C, Pleckinger B, Kemerter P, Feichtinger W. Prognostic appraisal of success and failure in an in-vitro fertilization program by transvaginal Doppler ultrasound at the time of ovulation induction. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1991; 1: 272–274.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Favre R, Bettahar K, Grange G, et al. Predictive value of transvaginal uterine ultrasound. Obstet Gynecol. 1993; 3: 350–353.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bustillo M, Krysa LW, Coulam CB. Uterine receptivity in an oocyte donation programme. Hum Reprod. 1995; 10(2): 442–45.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Asherman JG. Amenorrhea traumation (atretica). J Obstet Gynecol Br Emp. 1948; 55: 23–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Schenker JG, Margaliotu EJ. Intrauterine adhesions: an updated appraisal. Fertil Steril. 1982; 37: 593–610.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Monteagudo A, Timor-Tritsch IE. Determination of chorionicity and amnionicity in multifetal gestations in the first fourteen weeks by high frequency TVS. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994; 170: 827–829.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Timor-Tritsch IE, Rottem S. Transvaginal sonographic study of the Fallopian tube. Obstet Gynecol. 1987; 70: 424–428.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    de Crespigny IC. Demonstration of ectopic pregnancy by transvaginal ultrasound. Br J Obstet Gynecol. 1988; 95: 1253–1256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Timor-Tritsch IE, Yeh MN, Peisner DB, et al. The use of transvaginal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1989; 161: 157–161.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cacciatore B, Stenman U-H, Ylostalo P. Comparison of abdominal and vaginal sonography in suspected ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 1989; 73: 770–774.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Stiller RJ, de Regt RH, Blair E. Transvaginal ultrasonography in patients at risk for ectopic pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1989; 161: 930–933.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bateman BG, Nunley WC, Kolp LA, et al. Vaginal sonography findings and hCG dynamics of early intrauterine and tubal pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol. 1990: 75: 421–427.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Bohm-Velez M, Mendelson EB, Freimanis MG. Transvaginal sonography in evaluating ectopic pregnancy. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 1990; 11: 44–58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Timor-Tritsch IE, Monteagudo A, Lerner JP. A “ potentially safer” route for puncture and injection of normal ectopic pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 7: 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Monteagudo A, Tarricone NJ, Timor-Tritsch IE, Lerner JP. Successful trans-vaginal ultrasound guided puncture and injection of a cervical pregnancy in a patient with simultaneous intrauterine pregnancy and a history of a previous cervical pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 8: 381–386.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Evans MI, Dommergues M, Wapner RJ, et al. International, Collaborative Experience of 1789 patients having multifetal pregnancy reduction: a plateauing of risks and outcomes. J Soc Gynecol Invest. 1996; 3: 23–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Natan Haratz-Rubinstein
  • Ilan E. Timor-Tritsch

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations