Premium
Three‐dimensional sonography‐based automated volume calculation (SonoAVC) versus two‐dimensional manual follicular tracking in in vitro fertilization
Author(s) -
Singh Neeta,
Usha B.R.,
Malik Nisha,
Malhotra Neena,
Pant Sangita,
Vanamail Perumal
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
international journal of gynecology and obstetrics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.895
H-Index - 97
eISSN - 1879-3479
pISSN - 0020-7292
DOI - 10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.04.045
Subject(s) - follicular phase , in vitro fertilisation , follicular fluid , controlled ovarian hyperstimulation , ovarian follicle , follicle , andrology , oocyte , medicine , gynecology , nuclear medicine , biology , pregnancy , embryo , genetics , microbiology and biotechnology
Objective To compare the predictive value of manual two‐dimensional follicular monitoring with that of sonography‐based automated volume calculation (SonoAVC) in routine follicular tracking in in vitro fertilization (IVF). Methods A prospective study was undertaken of women undergoing IVF with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation at a center in New Delhi, India, between October and November 2013. Follicular monitoring was performed both manually and in three dimensions with SonoAVC. On the day of oocyte retrieval, the follicular count and dimensions were calculated with both techniques and correlated with the number of oocytes retrieved. Results Overall, 46 patients and 91 ovaries were studied. The mean times taken to perform manual and SonoAVC measurements were 209.2 ± 47.4 s and 156.6 ± 38.6 s, respectively ( P < 0.001). The mean follicular count was significantly lower when measured manually than with SonoAVC (8.46 ± 3.35 vs 9.91 ± 4.60; P = 0.016). However, the mean leading follicle diameter measured manually (19.45 ± 2.46 mm) was similar to both the mean diameter (21.12 ± 2.65 mm) and the volume‐based diameter (19.56 ± 2.16 mm) measured with SonoAVC. Conclusion Three‐dimensional SonoAVC could be a useful adjunct for follicular monitoring, with a significant reduction in time and a good correlation with manual counts. However, further studies with larger sample sizes are required.