OBJECTIVE: To investigate a possible difference between true ovarian volume and ovarian volume estimated with two-dimensional (2D) transvaginal ultrasound. DESIGN: Prospective clinical and laboratory study. SETTING: University hospital research laboratory. PATIENT(S): Premenopausal girls and women from three Danish national fertility centers (A: n = 42; B: n = 6; C: n = 18), who had one entire ovary removed for cryopreservation of ovarian cortex. INTERVENTION(S): Transvaginal 2D ultrasound measurement of ovarian volume before oophorectomy. True ovarian volume was obtained by weighing the ovary. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Ovarian volume estimated by weight and ultrasound. RESULT(S): Ovarian tissue density was 1.00 g/mL. Mean ovarian volume by ultrasound vs. weight in the three groups was as follows: A: 6.3 mL vs. 7.8 mL; B: 5.4 mL vs. 6.8 mL; and C: 2.8 mL vs. 6.1 ml. Ovarian volume obtained by ultrasound was at least 27% smaller than the true ovarian volume. CONCLUSION(S): Ovarian volume was severely underestimated by transvaginal 2D ultrasound measurement. Copyright 2010 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate a possible difference between true ovarian volume and ovarian volume estimated with two-dimensional (2D) transvaginal ultrasound. DESIGN: Prospective clinical and laboratory study. SETTING: University hospital research laboratory. PATIENT(S): Premenopausal girls and women from three Danish national fertility centers (A: n = 42; B: n = 6; C: n = 18), who had one entire ovary removed for cryopreservation of ovarian cortex. INTERVENTION(S): Transvaginal 2D ultrasound measurement of ovarian volume before oophorectomy. True ovarian volume was obtained by weighing the ovary. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Ovarian volume estimated by weight and ultrasound. RESULT(S): Ovarian tissue density was 1.00 g/mL. Mean ovarian volume by ultrasound vs. weight in the three groups was as follows: A: 6.3 mL vs. 7.8 mL; B: 5.4 mL vs. 6.8 mL; and C: 2.8 mL vs. 6.1 ml. Ovarian volume obtained by ultrasound was at least 27% smaller than the true ovarian volume. CONCLUSION(S): Ovarian volume was severely underestimated by transvaginal 2D ultrasound measurement. Copyright 2010 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Cecily V Bishop; Theodore A Molskness; Fuhua Xu; J Todd Belcik; Jonathan R Lindner; Ov D Slayden; Richard L Stouffer Journal: J Med Primatol Date: 2014-06-20 Impact factor: 0.667
Authors: G Acmaz; L Cınar; B Acmaz; H Aksoy; Yusuf Taner Kafadar; Y Madendag; F Ozdemir; E Sahin; I Muderris Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2019-04-07 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Thomas W Kelsey; Sarah K Dodwell; A Graham Wilkinson; Tine Greve; Claus Y Andersen; Richard A Anderson; W Hamish B Wallace Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-09-03 Impact factor: 3.240