3D Ultrasound for Follicle Monitoring in ART



Follicle tracking is commonly employed to assess the response to ovarian stimulation during an in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle. In the majority of cases, two-dimensional (2D) transvaginal ultrasound (US) is performed to monitor follicle growth and to determine the optimal time for administering human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) to trigger final oocyte maturation. However, the accurate evaluation of follicle size and count, especially with multifollicular growth, requires significant expertise and experience. The reliability and validity of such measurements are likely to decrease as the number of follicles increases. With 2D US, only an approximation of the actual follicular volume is achieved; therefore, it cannot be used to define standards for follicle tracking. In recent years, ultrasonographic imaging technologies and their supporting software have improved remarkably. These sophisticated techniques allow the identification and quantification of hypoechoic regions within a three-dimensional ultrasound (3D) data set and provide a precise estimation of their absolute dimensions, mean diameters, and volumes. Accurate evaluation of size and volume of complex structured follicles is facilitated. This chapter will provide an overview for the use of 3D ultrasound in reproductive medicine combined with automated measurement of follicular size, thus providing an objective, fast, valid, and reliable standard.


Ovarian Reserve Antral Follicle PCOS Patient Endometrial Thickness Control Ovarian Hyperstimulation 
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.


  1. 1.
    Porter RN, Smith W, Craft IL. Induction of ovulation for in-vitro fertilisation using buserelin and gonadotropins. Lancet. 1984;2:1284–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Marci R, Caserta D, Dolo V, Tatone C, Pavan A, Moscarini M. GnRH antagonist in IVF poor-responder patients: results of a randomized trial. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;11:189–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fridén BE, Nilsson L. Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone-antagonist luteolysis during the preceding mid-luteal phase is a feasible protocol in ovarian hyperstimulation before in vitro fertilization. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005;84:812–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Janssens RM, Lambalk CB, Vermeiden JP, Schats R, Bernards JM, Rekers-Mombarg LT, et al. Dose-finding study of triptorelin acetate for prevention of a premature LH surge in IVF: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:2333–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yaman C, Ebner T, Sommergruber M, Hartl J, Pölz W, Tews G. Three-dimensional endometrial volume estimation as a predictor of pituitary down-regulation in an IVF-embryo transfer programme. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:1698–702.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fauser BC. Follicular development and oocyte maturation in hypogonadotrophic women employing recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone: the role of oestradiol. Hum Reprod Update. 1997;3:101–8. Review.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee W, Gonçalves LF, Espinoza J, Romero R. Inversion mode: a new volume analysis tool for 3-dimensional ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med. 2005;24:201–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mahadevan M, Chalder K, Wiseman D, Leader A, Taylor PJ. Evidence for an absence of deleterious effects of ultrasound on human oocytes. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf. 1987;4:277–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hershkovitz R, Sheiner E, Mazor M. Ultrasound in obstetrics: a review of safety. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2002;101:15–8. Review.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Norton SJ, Linzer M. Ultrasonic reflectivity imaging in three dimensions: reconstruction with spherical transducer arrays. Ultrason Imaging. 1979;1:210–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reichman D, Laufer MR, Robinson BK. Pregnancy outcomes in unicornuate uteri: a review. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:1886–94. Review.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rackow BW, Arici A. Reproductive performance of women with müllerian anomalies. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;19:229–37. Review.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Airoldi J, Berghella V, Sehdev H, Ludmir J. Transvaginal ultrasonography of the cervix to predict preterm birth in women with uterine anomalies. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106:553–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Propst AM, Hill 3rd JA. Anatomic factors associated with recurrent pregnancy loss. Semin Reprod Med. 2000;18:341–50. Review.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Salim R, Woelfer B, Backos M, Regan L, Jurkovic D. Reproducibility of three-dimensional ultrasound diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003;21:578–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ghi T, Casadio P, Kuleva M, Perrone AM, Savelli L, Giunchi S, et al. Accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound in diagnosis and classification of congenital uterine anomalies. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:808–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Raga F, Bonilla-Musoles F, Blanes J, Osborne NG. Congenital Müllerian anomalies: diagnostic accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound. Fertil Steril. 1996;65:523–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wu MH, Hsu CC, Huang KE. Detection of congenital müllerian duct anomalies using three-dimensional ultrasound. J Clin Ultrasound. 1997;25:487–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rosendahl M, Ernst E, Rasmussen PE, Andersen CY. True ovarian volume is underestimated by two-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound measurement. Fertil Steril. 2010;93:995–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Salim R, Riris S, Saab W, Abramov B, Khadum I, Serhal P. Adenomyosis reduces pregnancy rates in infertile women undergoing IVF. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;25:273–7. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.05.003.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thalluri V, Tremellen KP. Ultrasound diagnosed adenomyosis has a negative impact on successful implantation following GnRH antagonist IVF treatment. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(12):3487–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    La Torre R, De Felice C, De Angelis C, Coacci F, Mastrone M, Cosmi EV. Transvaginal sonographic evaluation of endometrial polyps: a comparison with two dimensional and three dimensional contrast sonography. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 1999;26:171–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gruboeck K, Jurkovic D, Lawton F, Savvas M, Tailor A, Campbell S. The diagnostic value of endometrial thickness and volume measurements by three-dimensional ultrasound in patients with postmenopausal bleeding. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 1996;8:272–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Forrest TS, Elyaderani MK, Muilenburg MI, Bewtra C, Kable WT, Sullivan P. Cyclic endometrial changes: US assessment with histologic correlation. Radiology. 1988;167:233–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Remohí J, Ardiles G, García-Velasco JA, Gaitán P, Simón C, Pellicer A. Endometrial thickness and serum oestradiol concentrations as predictors of outcome in oocyte donation. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:2271–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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 fertilization programme. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:1255–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Raga F, Bonilla-Musoles F, Casañ EM, Klein O, Bonilla F. Assessment of endometrial volume by three-dimensional ultrasound prior to embryo transfer: clues to endometrial receptivity. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:2851–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zollner U, Zollner KP, Blissing S, Pöhls U, Steck T, Dietl J, et al. Impact of three-dimensionally measured endometrial volume on the pregnancy rate after intrauterine insemination. Zentralbl Gynakol. 2003;125:136–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kovachev E, Ganchev Z, Cherneva S, Zokhav E, Shperberg A. Measurement of endometrial volume and endometrial thickness for assessment of endometrial receptivity in assisted reproductive techniques. Akush Ginekol (Sofiia). 2005;44:27–33.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zollner U, Specketer MT, Dietl J, Zollner KP. 3D-Endometrial volume and outcome of cryopreserved embryo replacement cycles. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;286(2):517–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Out HJ, David I, Ron-El R, Friedler S, Shalev E, Geslevich J, et al. A randomized, double-blind clinical trial using fixed daily doses of 100 or 200 IU of recombinant FSH in ICSI cycles. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:1104–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Corbacioğlu A, Baysal B. Effects of endometrial thickness and echogenic pattern on assisted reproductive treatment outcome. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2009;36:145–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Raine-Fenning N, Campbell B, Collier J, Brincat M, Johnson I. The reproducibility of endometrial volume acquisition and measurement with the VOCAL-imaging program. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002;19:69–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bordes A, Bory AM, Benchaïb M, Rudigoz RC, Salle B. Reproducibility of transvaginal three-dimensional endometrial volume measurements with virtual organ computer-aided analysis (VOCAL) during ovarian stimulation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002;19:76–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Momeni M, Rahbar MH, Kovanci E. A meta-analysis of the relationship between endometrial thickness and outcome of in vitro fertilization cycles. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2011;4:130–7.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Singh M, Chaudhry P, Asselin E. Bridging endometrial receptivity and implantation: network of hormones, cytokines, and growth factors. J Endocrinol. 2011;210:5–14. Review.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jacobs HS. Polycystic ovaries and polycystic ovary syndrome. Gynecol Endocrinol. 1987;1:113–31. Review.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Polson DW, Adams J, Wadsworth J, Franks S. Polycystic ovaries – a common finding in normal women. Lancet. 1988;1:870–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Adams J, Polson DW, Franks S. Prevalence of polycystic ovaries in women with anovulation and idiopathic hirsutism. Br Med J. (Clin Res Ed). 1986;293:355–9.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    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.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    He LR, Zhou LX, Pan RK. Zhang X [Clinical significance 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kyei-Mensah AA, Lin Tan S, Zaidi J, Jacobs HS. Relationship of ovarian stromal volume to serum androgen concentrations in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:1437–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Järvelä IY, Mason HD, Sladkevicius P, Kelly S, Ojha K, Campbell S, et al. Characterization of normal and polycystic ovaries using three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasonography. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2002;19:582–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pan HA, Wu MH, Cheng YC, Li CH, Chang FM. Quantification 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ng EH, Chan CC, Tang OS, Yeung WS, Ho PC. The role of endometrial and subendometrial blood flows measured by three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound in the prediction of pregnancy during IVF treatment. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:164–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Pascual MA, Graupera B, Hereter L, Tresserra F, Rodriguez I, Alcázar JL. Assessment of ovarian vascularization in the polycystic ovary by three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasonography. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2008;24:631–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Dolz M, Osborne NG, Blanes J, Raga F, Abad-Velasco L, Villalobos A, et al. Polycystic ovarian syndrome: assessment with color Doppler angiography and three-dimensional ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med. 1999;18:303–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Benacerraf BR. Inversion mode display of 3D sonography: applications in obstetric and gynecologic imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187:965–71. Review.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Gougeon A. Regulation of ovarian follicular development in primates: facts and hypotheses. Endocr Rev. 1996;17:121–55. Review.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Broekmans FJ, Kwee J, Hendriks DJ, Mol BW, Lambalk CB. A systematic review of tests predicting ovarian reserve and IVF outcome. Hum Reprod Update. 2006;12:685–718. Review.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Verhagen TE, Hendriks DJ, Bancsi LF, Mol BW, Broekmans FJ. The accuracy of multivariate models predicting ovarian reserve and pregnancy after in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2008;14:95–100.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Adibi A, Mardanian F, Hajiahmadi S. Comparison of Ovarian volume and Antral follicle count with Endocrine tests for prediction of responsiveness in ovulation induction protocols. Adv Biomed Res. 2012;1:71. doi:  10.4103/2277-9175.102975.
  55. 55.
    van der Stege JG, van der Linden PJ. Useful predictors of ovarian stimulation response in women undergoing in vitro fertilization. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2001;52:43–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Karande VC. Managing and predicting low response to standard in vitro fertilization therapy: a review of the options. Treat Endocrinol. 2003;2:257–72. Review.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Palma GA, Argañaraz ME, Barrera AD, Rodler D, Mutto AÁ, Sinowatz F. Biology and biotechnology of follicle development. Scientific World Journal. 2012;2012:938138. doi: 10.1100/2012/938138. Review.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Smotrich DB, Widra EA, Gindoff PR, Levy MJ, Hall JL, Stillman RJ. Prognostic value of day 3 estradiol on in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril. 1995;64:1136–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Seifer DB, Scott Jr RT, Bergh PA, Abrogast LK, Friedman CI, Mack CK, et al. Women with declining ovarian reserve may demonstrate a decrease in day 3 serum inhibin B before a rise in day 3 follicle-stimulating hormone. Fertil Steril. 1999;72:63–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    van Rooij IA, Broekmans FJ, te Velde ER, Fauser BC, Bancsi LF, de Jong FH, et al. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels: a novel measure of ovarian reserve. Hum Repod. 2002;17:3065–71.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    de Vet A, Laven JS, de Jong FH, Themmen AP, Fauser BC. Antimüllerian hormone serum levels: a putative marker for ovarian aging. Fertil Steril. 2002;77:357–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Fanchin R, Schonäuer LM, Righini C, Frydman N, Frydman R, Taieb J. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone dynamics during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:328–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Hendriks DJ, Mol BW, Bancsi LF, Te Velde ER, Broekmans FJ. Antral follicle count in the prediction of poor ovarian response and pregnancy after in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis and comparison with basal follicle-stimulating hormone level. Fertil Steril. 2005;83:291–301.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Visser JA, Themmen AP. Anti-Müllerian hormone and folliculogenesis. Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2005;234:81–6. Review.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Klinkert ER, Broekmans FJ, Looman CW, Habbema JD, te Velde ER. The antral follicle count is a better marker than basal follicle-stimulating hormone for the selection of older patients with acceptable pregnancy prospects after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2005;83:811–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Visser JA, de Jong FH, Laven JS, Themmen AP. Anti-Müllerian hormone: a new marker for ovarian function. Reproduction. 2006;131:1–9. Review.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Kupesic S, Kurjak A. Predictors of IVF outcome by three-dimensional ultrasound. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:950–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Arslan M, Bocca S, Mirkin S, Barroso G, Stadtmauer L, Oehninger S. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation protocols for in vitro fertilization: two decades of experience after the birth of Elizabeth Carr. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:555–69. Review.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Tomas C, Nuojua-Huttunen S, Martikainen H. Pretreatment transvaginal ultrasound examination predicts ovarian responsiveness to gonadotrophins in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:220–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Chang MY, Chiang CH, Chiu TH, Hsieh TT, Soong YK. The antral follicle count predicts the outcome of pregnancy in a controlled ovarian hyperstimulation/intrauterine insemination program. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1998;15:12–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Haadsma ML, Bukman A, Groen H, Roeloffzen EM, Groenewoud ER, Heineman MJ, et al. The number of small antral follicles (2–6 mm) determines the outcome of endocrine ovarian reserve tests in a subfertile population. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:1925–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Jayaprakasan K, Deb S, Batcha M, Hopkisson J, Johnson I, Campbell B, et al. The cohort of antral follicles measuring 2–6 mm reflects the quantitative status of ovarian reserve as assessed by serum levels of anti-Müllerian hormone and response to controlled ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1775–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Raine-Fenning N, Jayaprakasan K, Clewes J, Joergner I, Bonaki SD, Chamberlain S, et al. SonoAVC: a novel method of automatic volume calculation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31:691–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Raine-Fenning N, Jayaprakasan K, Chamberlain S, Devlin L, Priddle H, Johnson I, et al. Automated measurements of follicle diameter: a chance to standardize? Fertil Steril. 2009;91:1469–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    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 flow. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;31:439–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    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.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Ata B, Tulandi T. Ultrasound automated volume calculation in reproduction and in pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:2163–70. Review.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Wittmaack FM, Kreger DO, Blasco L, Tureck RW, Mastroianni Jr L, Lessey BA. Effect of follicular size on oocyte retrieval, fertilization, cleavage, and embryo quality in in-vitro fertilization cycles: a 6-year data collection. Fertil Steril. 1994;62:1205–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Penzias AS, Emmi AM, Dubey AK, Layman LC, DeCherney AH, Reindollar RH. Ultrasound prediction of follicle volume: is the mean diameter reflective? Fertil Steril. 1994;62:1274–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Quigley MM, Sokoloski JE, Richards SI. Timing human chorionic gonadotropin administration by days of estradiol rise. Fertil Steril. 1985;44:791–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Levran D, Lopata A, Nayudu PL, Martin MJ, McBain JC, Bayly CM, et al. Analysis of the outcome of in vitro fertilization in relation to the timing of human chorionic gonadotropin administration by the duration of estradiol rise in stimulated cycles. Fertil Steril. 1985;44:335–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Casper RF, Armstrong DT, Brown SE, Daniel SA, Yuzpe AA, Erskine H. In vitro fertilization: determination of follicular maturation for timing of human chorionic gonadotropin administration. Fertil Steril. 1987;47:345–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Nilsson L, Wikland M, Hamburger L, Hillensjo T, Chari S, Sturm G, et al. Simplification of the method of in vitro fertilization: Sonographic measurements of follicular diameter as a sole index of follicular maturity. J In Vitro Fert Emryo Transf. 1985;2:17.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Tan SL, Balen A, el Hussein E, Mills C, Campbell S, Yovich J, et al. A prospective randomized study of the optimum timing of human chorionic gonadotropin administration after pituitary desensitization in in-vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1992;57:1259–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Dubey AK, Wang HA, Duffy P, Penzias AS. The correlation between follicular measurements, oocyte morphology, and fertilization rates in an in vitro fertilization program. Fertil Steril. 1995;64:787–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Von Ramm OT, Smith SW. Three-dimensional imaging system. 1987. United States Patent 4,694,434. Available from: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4694434.html. Last accessed 5 Dec 2012.
  92. 92.
    Kyei-Mensah A, Maconochie N, Zaidi J, Pittrof R, Campbell S, Tan SL. Transvaginal three-dimensional ultrasound: accuracy of follicular volume measurements. Fertil Steril. 1996;66:718–22.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Yavas Y, Selub MR. Ovarian follicular volume and follicular surface area are better indicators of follicular growth and maturation, respectively, than is follicular diameter. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:1299–302.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Rosen MP, Shen S, Dobson AT, Rinaudo PF, McCulloch CE, Cedars MI. A quantitative assessment of follicle size on oocyte developmental competence. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:684–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Scott RT, Hofmann GE, Muasher SJ, Acosta AA, Kreiner DK, Rosenwaks Z. Correlation of follicular diameter with oocyte recovery and maturity at the time of transvaginal follicular aspiration. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf. 1989;6:73–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Ectors FJ, Vanderzwalmen P, Van Hoeck J, Nijs M, Verhaegen G, Delvigne A, et al. Relationship of human follicular diameter with oocyte fertilization and development after in-vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:2002–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Raine-Fenning N, Jayaprakasan K, Deb S, Clewes J, Joergner I, Dehghani Bonaki S, et al. Automated follicle tracking improves measurement reliability in patients undergoing ovarian stimulation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;18:658–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Amer A, Hammadeh ME, Kolkailah M, Ghandour AA. Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional ultrasound measurement of follicular volume: are they comparable? Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2003;268:155–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Raine-Fenning NJ, Jayaprakasan K, Clewes JS, Joergner I, Bonaki SD, Chamberlain S. Establishing the validity of a new technique that facilitates automated follicular volume measurement. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007;30:393.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Rousian M, Verwoerd-Dikkeboom CM, Koning AH, Hop WC, van der Spek PJ, Exalto N, et al. Early pregnancy volume measurements: validation of ultrasound techniques and new perspectives. BJOG. 2009;116:278–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Raga F, Bonilla-Musoles F, Castillo JC. SonoAVC: a new tool in early diagnosis of patent urachus with bladder prolapse. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;39:241–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Deutch TD, Joergner I, Matson DO, Oehninger S, Bocca S, Hoenigmann D, et al. Automated assessment of ovarian follicles using a novel three-dimensional ultrasound software. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:1562–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Ata B, Seyhan A, Reinblatt SL, Shalom-Paz E, Krishnamurthy S, Tan SL. Comparison of automated and manual follicle monitoring in an unrestricted population of 100 women undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation for IVF. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:127–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Hernández J, Sanabria V, Rodríguez-Fuentes A, García-Guzman R, Palumbo A. Comparison of automated measurements of follicular volume and manual measurements of follicular diameter to HCG administration: a prospective study in egg donors. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:47.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Lamazou F, Arbo E, Salama S, Grynberg M, Frydman R, Fanchin R. Reliability of automated volumetric measurement of multiple growing follicles in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:2172–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Salama S, Arbo E, Lamazou F, Levailllant JM, Frydman R, Fanchin R. Reproducibility and reliability of automated volumetric measurement of single preovulatory follicles using SonoAVC. Fertil Steril. 2010;93:2069–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Rodríguez-Fuentes A, Hernández J, García-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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Raine-Fenning NJ, Jayaprakasan K, Deb S, Clewes JS, Johnson IR. Automated three-dimensional follicular measurements increase the clinical work flow in an IVF programme. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008;32:308–97.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Murtinger M, Aburumieh A, Rubner P, Eichel V, Zech MH, Zech NH. Improved monitoring of ovarian stimulation using 3D transvaginal ultrasound plus automated volume count. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;19:695–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Sherbahn R, Deutch T. Follicle measurements using a computerized 3D ultrasound system (SonoAVC) is effective and efficient. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:118.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Jörger I, Scherleitner E. SonoAVC Studies on automated detection and measurements of hyper-stimulated follicles utilizing a new algorithm. GE Medical Systems Ultrasound & Primary Care Diagnostics, LLC, a General Electric company, doing business as GE Healthcare. 2008. Available from: http://www.gehealthcare.com/laes/docs/SonoAVC7.pdf. Last accessed on 5 Dec 2012.
  113. 113.
    Murtinger M, Aburumieh A, Zech MH, Spitzer D, Zech NH. Objective follicle monitoring and accurate result communication from referring physicians in an IVF program. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;38:98–9.Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Roest J, Verhoeff A, van Lent M, Huisman GJ, Zeilmaker GH. Results of decentralized in-vitro fertilization treatment with transport and satellite clinics. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:563–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    EU Directive on tissue and cells (2004/23/EC). Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:102:0048:0058:en:PDF. Last accessed on 5 Dec 2012.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IVF Centers Prof. ZechBregenzAustria
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyMedical University GrazBregenzAustria

Personalised recommendations