Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Print publication year: 2010
  • Online publication date: September 2011

Section 2: - Ultrasonography in infertility

References

1. SchefferGJ, BroekmansFJ, BancsiLF, HabbemaDJF, LoomanCWN, te VeldeER.Quantitative transvaginal two- and three dimensional sonography of the ovaries: reproducibility of antral follicle counts. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 20: 270–5.
2. KupesicS, KurjakA, BjelosD, VujisicS.Three-dimensional ultrasonographic ovarian measurements and in vitro fertilization outcome are related to age. Fertil Steril 2003; 79: 190–7.
3. OyesanyaOA, ParsonsJH, CollinsWP, CampbellS.Total ovarian volume before human chorionic gonadotropin administration for ovulation induction may predict the hyperstimulation syndrome. Hum Reprod 1995; 10: 3211–12.
4. NgE, ChanC, YeungW, HoP.Effect of pituitary downregulation on antral follicle count, ovarian volume and stromal blood flow measured by three-dimensional ultrasound with power Doppler prior to ovarian stimulation. Hum Reprod 2004; 19: 2811–15
5. PanH, WuM, ChengY, WuL, ChangF.Quantification of ovarian stromal Doppler signals in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization with three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasonography. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 190: 338–44.
6. MerceLT, BarcoMJ, BauSTroyanoJM.Prediction of ovarian response and IVF/ICSI outcome by three-dimensional ultrasonography and power Doppler angiography. Eur J Obstetr Gynecol Reprod Biol 2007; 132: 93–100.
7. KupesicS.Three-dimensional ultrasound in reproductive medicine. Ultrasound Rev Obstetr Gynecol 2005; 5: 304–15.
8. Raine-FenningNJ, CampbellBK, KendallNR, ClewesJS, JohnsonIR.Quantifying the changes in endometrial vascularity throughout the normal menstrual cycle with three-dimensional power Doppler angiography. Hum Reprod 2004; 19: 330–8.
9. JokubkieneL, SladkeviciusP, RovasL, ValentinL.Assessment of changes in endometrial and subendometrial volume and vascularity during the normal menstrual cycle using three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 27: 672–9.
10. NargundG.Time for an ultrasound revolution in reproductive medicine. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 20: 107–11.
11. LindhardA, RavnV, Bentin-LeyU, et al. Ultrasound characteristics and histological dating of the endometrium in a natural cycle in infertile women compared with fertile controls. Fertil Steril 2006; 86: 1344–55.
12. Raine-FenningNJ, CampbellBK, KendallNR, ClewesJS, JohnsonIR.Endometrial and subendometrial perfusion are impaired in women with unexplained subfertility. Hum Reprod 2004; 19: 2605–14.
13. NgEH, ChanCC, TangOS, YeungWS, HoPC.Comparison of endometrial and subendometrial blood flow measured by three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound between stimulated and natural cycles in the same patients. Hum Reprod 2004; 19: 2385–90.
14. ZaidiJ, CampbellS, PittrofR, TanSL.Endometrial thickness, morphology, vascular penetration and velocimetry in predicting implantation in an in vitro fertilization program. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995; 6: 191–8.
15. PiersonRA.Imaging the endometrium: are there predictors of uterine receptivity?J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2003; 25: 360–8.
16. RagaF, Bonilla-MusolesF, CasanEM, KleinO, BonillaF:Assessment of endometrial volume by three-dimensional ultrasoundprior to embryo transfer: clues to endometrial receptivity. Hum Reprod 1999; 14: 2851–4.
17. RichterKS, BuggeKR, BromerJG, LevyMJ.Relationship between endometrial thickness and embryo implantation, based on 1,294 cycles of in vitro fertilization with transfer of two blastocyst-stage embryosFertil Steril 2007; 87: 53–9.
18. ZhangX, ChenCH, ConfinoE, BarnesR, MiladM, KazerRR.Increased endometrial thickness is associated with improved treatment outcome for selected patients undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2005; 83: 336–40.
19. PuertoB, CreusM, CarmonaF, CivicoS, VanrellJA, BalaschJ.Ultrasonography as a predictor of embryo implantation after in vitro fertilization: a controlled study. Fertil Steril 2003; 79: 1015–22.
20. Garcia-VelascoJA, IsazaV, CaligaraC, PellicerA, RemohiJ, SimonC.Factors that determine discordant outcome from shared oocytes. Fertil Steril 2003; 80: 54–60.
21. SoaresS, TroncosoC, BoschE, et al. Age and uterine receptiveness: predicting the outcome of oocyte donation cycles. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2005; 90(7): 4399–404.
22. YamanC, EbnerT, SommergruberM, PolzW, TewsG.Role of three-dimensional ultrasonographic measurement of endometrium volume as a predictor of pregnancy outcome in an IVF-ET program: a preliminary study. Fertil Steril 2000; 74: 797–801.
23. KupesicS, BekavacI, BjelosD, KurjakA.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: 125–34.
24. SchildRL, HolthausS, d’AlquenJ, et al. 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.
25. WuHM, ChiangCH, HuangHY, ChaoAS, WangHS, SoongYK.Detection of the subendometrial vascularization flow index by three-dimensional ultrasound may be useful for predicting the pregnancy rate for patients undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2003; 79: 507–11.
26. JarvelaIY, SladkeviciusP, KellyS, OjhaK, CampbellS, NargundG.Evaluation of endometrial receptivity during in-vitro fertilization using three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 26: 765–76.
27. NgEh, ChanCC, TangOS, YeungWS, HoPC: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.
28. MercéLT, BarcoMJ, BauS, TroyanoJ.Are endometrial parameters by three-dimensional ultrasound and power Doppler angiography related to in vitro fertilization/embryo transfer outcome?. Fertil Steril 2008; 89: 111–17.
29. NgEH, ChanCC, TangOS, YeungWS, HoPC.The role of endometrial and subendometrial vascularity measured by three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound in the prediction of pregnancy during frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. Hum Reprod 2006; 21: 1612–17.
30. NgEH, ChanCC, TangOS, YeungWS, ChungH.Endometrial and subendometrial vascularity is higher in pregnant patients with livebirth following ART than in those who suffer a miscarriageHum Reprod 2007; 22: 1134–41.
31. AlcázarJL.Three-dimensional ultrasound assessment of endometrial receptivity: a review. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2006; 4: 56.

References

1. CarminaE, LoboRA. Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS): arguably the most common endocrinopathy is associated with significant morbidity in women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1999; 84: 1897–9.
2. SteinIF, LeventhalML.Amenorrhea associated with polycystic ovaries. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1935; 29: 181–91.
3. AzzizR, MarinC, HoqL, BadamgaravE, SongP. Health care-related economic burden of the polycystic ovary syndrome during the reproductive life span. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2005; 90: 4650–8.
4. ZawadskiJK, DunaifA. Diagnostic criteria for polycystic ovary syndrome: toward a rational approach. In: DunaifA, GivensJR, HaseltineFP, MerriamGR, eds., Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. Boston, MA: Blackwell Scientific, 1992, pp. 377–84.
5. Azziz, R. Controversy in clinical endocrinology: diagnosis of polycystic ovary syndrome: the Rotterdam criteria are premature. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2006; 91: 781–5.
6. AzzizR, CarminaE, DewaillyD, et al. Position statement: criteria for defining polycystic ovary syndrome as a predominantly hyperandrogenic syndrome: an Androgen Excess Society guideline. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2006; 91: 4237–45.
7. LegroR, ChiuP, KunselmanAR, BentleyCM, DodsonWC, DuanifA.Polycystic ovaries are common in women with hyperandrogenic chronic anovulation but do not predict metabolic or reproductive phenotype. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2005; 90: 2571–9.
8. The Rotterdam ESHRE/ASRM-sponsored PCOS consensus workshop group. Revised 2003 consensus on diagnostic criteria and long-term heath risks related to polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Hum Reprod 2004; 19: 41–7.
9. BalenA, LavenJSE, TanSL, DewaillyD. Ultrasound assessment of the polycystic ovary: international census definitions. Hum Reprod 2003; 9: 505–14.
10. JonardS, RobertY, Cortet-RudelliC, PignyP, DecanterC, DewaillyD. Ultrasound examination of polycystic ovaries: is it worth counting the follicles?Hum Reprod 2003; 18: 598–603.
11. AdamsJ, PolsonDW, FranksS. Prevalence of polycystic ovaries in women with anovulation and idiopathic hirsutism. Br Med J. 1986; 293: 355–9.
12. FoxR, CorriganE, ThomasPA, HullMG. The diagnosis of polycystic ovaries in women with oligo-amenorrhoea: predictive power of endocrine tests. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 1991; 34: 127–31.
13. JarvelaIY, MasonHD, SladkeviciusR, et al. Characterization of normal and polycystic ovaries using three-dimensional power doppler ultrasonography. J Assist Reprod Genet 2002; 19: 582–90.
14. LamPM, JohnsonIR, Raine-FenningNJ. Three-dimensional ultrasound features of the polycystic ovary and the effect of different phenotypic expressions on these parameters. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 3116–23.
15. ZaidiJ, TanSL, PitroffR, CampbellS, CollinsW. Blood flow changes in the intra-ovarian arteries during the peri-ovulatory period–relationship to the time of day. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996; 7: 135–40.
16. BrownMA, ChangRJ.Polycystic ovary syndrome: clinical and imaging features. Ultrasound Q 2007; 23: 233–8.
17. DewaillyD, Catteau-JonardS, ReyssAC, Maunoury-LefebvreC, PonceletE, PignyP. The excess in 2–5 mm follicles seen at ovarian ultrasonography is tightly associated to the follicular arrest of the polycystic ovary syndrome. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 1562–6.
18. JonardS, RobertY, DewaillyD. Revisiting the ovarian volume as a diagnostic criterion for polycystic ovaries. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 2893–8.
19. NagamaniM. Polycystic ovary syndrome variants: Hyperthecosis. In: AdashiEY, RockJA, RosenwaksZ, eds. Reproductive Endocrinology, Surgery and Technology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven, 1996; 1258–69.
20. DewaillyD, RobertY, HelinY, et al. Ovarian stromal hypertrophy in hyperandrogenic women. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 1994; 41: 557–62.
21. FulghesuAM, CiampelliM, BelosiC, ApaR, PavoneV, LanzoneA. A new ultrasound criterion for the diagnosis of polycystic ovary syndrome: the ovarian stroma/total area ratio. Fertil Steril 2001; 76: 326–31.
22. FulghesuAM, AngioniS, FrauE, et al. Ultrasound in polycystic ovary syndrome–the measuring of ovarian stroma and relationship with circulating androgens: results of a multicentric study. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 2501–8.
23. BelosiC, SelvaggiL, ApaR, et al. Is the PCOS diagnosis solved by ESHRE/ASRM 2003 consensus or could it include ultrasound examination of the ovarian stroma?Hum Reprod 2006; 21: 3108–15.
24. BuckettWM, BouzayenR, WatkinKL, TulandiT, TanSL.Ovarian stromal echogenicity in women with normal and polycystic ovaries. Hum Reprod 1999; 14: 618–21.
25. OzkanS, VuralB, CaliskanE, BodurH, TurkozE, VuralF. Color doppler sonographic analysis of uterine and ovarian artery blood flow in women with PCOS. J Clin Ultrasound 2007; 35: 305–13.

References

1. SteinI, LeventhalM. Amenorrhea associated with bilateral polycystic ovaries. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1935; 29: 181–91.
2. AzzizR, WoodsK, ReynaR. The prevalence and features of PCOS in an unselected population. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2004; 89: 2745–9.
3. Hamilton-FairleyD, TaylorA. ABC of subfertility: anovulation. BMJ 2003; 327: 5469.
4. PolsonDW, AdamsJ, WadsworthJ, FranksS. Polycystic ovaries – a common finding in normal women. Lancet 1988; 1(8590): 870–2.
5. AdamsJ, PolsonDW, FranksS. Prevalence of polycystic ovaries in women with anovulation and idiopathic hirsutism. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1986; 293(6543): 355–9.
6. von MicskyLI. Cited by: KratochwilA, UrbanG, FriedrichF. Ultrasonic tomography of the ovaries. Ann Chir Gynaecol Fenn 1972; 61: 211–14.
7. KratochwilA, JentzschK, BrezinaK. Ultraschallanatomie des weiblichen Beckens und ihre klinische Bedeuntung. Arch Gynaecol 1973; 214: 273–5.
8. HillL, BreckleR, CoulamC. Asssessment of human follicular development by ultrasound. Mayo Clin Proc 1982; 57: 176–80.
9. Adams, J, Polson, DW, Franks, S. Prevalence of polycystic ovaries in women with anovulation and idiopathic hirsutism. Br Med J 1986; 293: 355.
10. 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.
11. Welt, CK, Arason, G, Gudmundsson, JA, et al. Defining constant versus variable phenotypic features of women with polycystic ovary syndrome using different ethnic groups and populations. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2006; 91: 4361.
12. MasonHD, WillisDS, BeardRW, WinstonRM, MargaraR, FranksS. Estradiol production by granulosa cells of normal and polycystic ovaries: relationship to menstrual cycle history and concentrations of gonadotropins and sex steroids in follicular fluid. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1994; 79(5): 1355–60.
13. BrownJB, BeischerNA. Current status of estrogen assay in gynecology and obstetrics. Obstet Gynecol 1972; 27: 205–35.
14. BlackWP, CouttJR, DodsonKS, RaoLG S. An assessment of urinary and plasma steroid estimations for monitoring treatment of anovulation with gonadotropins. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1974; 81: 667–75.
15. KarlssonB, GranbergS, WiklandM, et al. Transvaginal ultrasonography of the endometrium in women with postmenopausal bleeding – a Nordic multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 172: 1488.
16. AllemandMC, TummonIS, PhyJL, FoongSC, DumesicDA, SessionDR. Diagnosis of polycystic ovaries by three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound. Fertil Steril 2006; 85(1): 214–19.
17. JärveläIY, SladkeviciusP, KellyS, OjhaK, CampbellS, NargundG. Comparison of follicular vascularization in normal versus polycystic ovaries during in vitro fertilization as measured using 3-dimensional power Doppler ultrasonography. Fertil Steril 2004; 82(5) 1358–63.
18. BlanksteinJ, ShalevJ, et al. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: prediction by number and size of preovulatory ovarian follicles. Fertil Steril 1987; 47: 597–602.
19. RizkB, AboulgharM. Modern management of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Hum Reprod 1991; 6: 1082–7.
20. RizkB, AboulgharM. Classification, pathophysiology and management of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. In: BrinsdenPR, ed. A Textbook of In Vitro Fertilization and Assisted Reproduction: The Bourn Hall Guide to Clinical and Laboratory Practice. 2nd edn. New York, Parthenon Publishing Group, 1991; pp. 131–55.
21. RizkB, AboulgharM. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. In: RizkB ed. Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome. Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, Prevention and Management. Cambridge University Press, 2010; pp. 118–24.

References

1. Practice Committee of the ASRM. Myomas and reproductive function. Fertil Steril 2004; 82: S111–16.
2. MarshallLM, SpiegelmanD, BarbieriRL, et al. Variation in the incidence of uterine leiomyoma among premenopausal women by age and race. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 90: 967–73.
3. WamstekerK, de BlokS.Resection of intrauterine fibroids In: LewisBV, MagosAL, eds. Endometrial Ablation. Edinburgh, UK: Churchill Livingstone, 1993.
4. CohenL, ValleR. Role of vaginal sonography and hysterosonography in the endoscopic treatment of uterine myomas. Fertil Steril 2000; 73: 197–204.
5. ReddyN, JainKA, GerscovichEO. A degenerating cystic uterine fibroid mimicking an endometrioma on sonography. J Ultrasound Med 2003; 22(9), 973–6.
6. FerenczyA. Pathophysiology of adenomyosis. Hum Reprod Update 1998: 4(4): 312–22.
7. SylvestreC, ChildTJ, TulandiT, TanSL. A prospective study to evaluate the efficacy of two- and three-dimensional sonohysterography in women with intrauterine lesions. Fertil Steril 2003; 79(5): 1222–5.
8. BhattS. Doppler imaging of the uterus and adnexae. Ultrasound Clin 2006; 1(1): 201–21.
9. ExacoustosC, RosatiP. Ultrasound diagnosis of uterine myomas and complications in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 82: 97–101
10. KatzVL, DottersDJ, DroegemuellerW. Complications of uterine leiomyomas in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1989; 73: 593–6.
11. BensonCB, ChowJS, Chang-LeeW, HillJA, DoubiletPM. Outcome of pregnancies in women with uterine leiomyomas identified by sonography in the first trimester. J Clin Ultrasound 2001; 29: 261–4.
12. QidwaiIG, CaugheyAB, JacobyAF.Obstetric outcomes in women with sonographically identified uterine leiomyomata. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107: 376–82.
13. FarhiJ, AshkenaziJ, FeldbergD, DickerD, OrvietoR, Ben RafaelZ. The effects of uterine leiomyomata on in-vitro fertilization treatment. Hum Reprod 1995; 10: 2576–8.
14. PrittsEA.Fibroids and infertility: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2001; 56: 483–91.
15. KlatskyP, TranD, CaugheyA, FujimotoV.Fibroids and reproductive outcomes: a systematic literature review from conception to delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008: 198(4): 357–66.
16. ShokeirTA.Hysteroscopic management in submucous fibroids to improve fertility. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2005; 273(1) 50–4.
17. NarayanR, Rajat, Goswamy K. Treatment of submucous fibroids, and outcome of assisted conception. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1994; 1: 307–11.
18. StovallDW, ParrishSB, Van VoorhisBJ, HahnSJ, SparksAET, SyropCH. Uterine leiomyomas reduce the efficacy of reproduction cycles. Hum Reprod 1998; 13: 192–7.
19. HartR, KhalafY, YeongCT, SeedP, TaylorA, BraudeP. A prospective controlled study of the effect of intramural uterine fibroids on the outcome of assisted conception. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 2411–17.
20. CheckJH, ChoeJK, LeeG, DietterichC. The effect on IVF outcome of small intramural fibroids not compressing the uterine cavity as determined by a prospective matched control study. Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 1244–8.
21. Elder-GevaT, MeagherS, HealyDL, MaclachlanV, BrehenyS, WoodC. Effect of intramural, subserosal, and submucosal uterine fibroids on the outcome of assisted reproductive technology treatmentFertil Steril 1998; 70: 687–91.
22. RinehartJ. Myomas and infertility: small intramural myomas do not reduce pregnancy rate in vitro fertilization. Presented at the 53rd Annual meeting of the American Society for Reproductive medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1997; 18–22.
23. YaraliH, BukulmezO. The effect of intramural and subserous uterine fibroids on implantation and clinical pregnancy rates in patients having intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2002; 266: 30–3.
24. SurreyES, LietzAK, SchoolcraftWB. Impact of intramural leiomyomata in patients with a normal endometrial cavity on in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycle outcome. Fertil Steril 2001; 75: 405–10.
25. BullettiC, De ZeiglerD, SettiP, CicinelliE, PolliV, StefanettiM.Myomas, pregnancy outcome and in vitro fertilization. Ann NY Acad Sci 2004; 1034; 84–92.
26. ButtramVCJr, ReiterRC.Uterine leiomyomata: etiology, symptomology, and management. Fertil Steril 1981;36: 433–45.
27. DonnezJ, JadoulP.What are the implications of myomas on fertility? – A need for a debate?Hum Reprod 2002; 17(6): 1424–30.
28. HasanF, ArumugamK, SivanesaratnamV. Uterine leiomyomata in pregnancy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1990 34, 45–58.
29. KanelopoulosN, DendrinosS, OikonomouA, PanagopoulosP, MarkussisV. Doppler-ultrasound as a predictor of uterine fibroid response to GnRH therapy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2003 Jul; 82(1): 41–7.
30. WalkerWJ, BratbyMJMagnetic resonance imaging (MRI) analysis of fibroid location in women achieving pregnancy after uterine artery embolizationCardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2007; 30(5): 876–81.
31. ACOG Committee Opinion. Uterine artery embolization. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103(2): 403–4.
32. GhaiS, RajanDK, BenjaminMS, AschMR, GhaiS. Uterine artery embolization for leiomyomas: pre- and postprocedural evaluation with US. Radiographics 2005 Sep-Oct; 25(5): 1159–72; discussion 1173–6.
33. MikamiK, MurakamiT, OkadaA, OsugaK, TomodaK, NakamuraH. Magnetic resonance imaging-guided focused ultrasound ablation of uterine fibroids: early clinical experience. Radiat Med 2008; 26(4): 198–205.

References

1. SmithB, PorterR, AhujaK, CraftI. Ultrasonic assessment of endometrial changes in stimulated cycles in an in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer program. J IVF-ET 1984; 1: 233–8.
2. GonenY, CasperRF, JacobsonW, BlankierJ. Endometrial thickness and growth during ovarian stimulation: a possible predictor of implantation in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1989; 52: 446–50.
3. HofmannGE, ThieJ, ScottRT, NavotD. Endometrial thickness is predictive of histologic endometrial maturation in women undergoing hormone replacement for ovum donation. Fertil Steril 1996; 66: 380–3.
4. SterzikK, AbtM, GrabD, SchneiderVStrehlerE. Predicting the histologic dating of an endometrial biopsy specimen with the use of Doppler ultrasonography and hormone measurements in patients undergoing spontaneous ovulatory cycles. Fertil Steril 2000; 73: 94–8.
5. RogersPAW, PolsonD, MurphyCR, HosieM, SusilB, LeoniM. Correlation of endometrial histology, morphometry, and ultrasound appearance after different stimulation protocols for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1991; 55: 583–7.
6. IjlandMM, EversJLH, DunselmanGAJ, van KatwijkC, LoCR, HooglandHJ. Endometrial wavelike movements during the menstrual cycle. Fertil Steril 1996; 65: 746–9.
7. RandallJM, TempletonA. Transvaginal sonographic assessment of follicular and endometrial growth in spontaneous and clomiphene citrate cycles. Fertil Steril 1991; 56: 208–12.
8. RandallJM, FiskMM, McTavishA, TempletonAA. Transvaginal ultrasonic assessment of endometrial growth in spontaneous and hyperstimulated menstrual cycles. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1989; 96: 954–9.
9. BakosO, LundkvistO, BerghT. Transvaginal sonographic evaluation of endometrial growth and texture in spontaneous ovulatory cycles–a descriptive study. Hum Reprod 1993; 8: 799–806.
10. SherG, HerbertC, MaassaraniG, JacobsMH. Assessment of the late proliferative phase endometrium by ultrasonography in patients undergoing in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 1991; 6: 232–7.
11. YagelS, Ben-ChetritA, AntebyE, et al. The effect of ethinyl estradiol on endometrial thickness and uterine volume during ovulation induction by clomiphene citrate. Fertil Steril 1992; 57: 33–6.
12. StrohmerH, ObrucaA, RadnerKM, FeichtingerW. Relationship of the individual uterine size and the endometrial thickness in stimulated cycles. Fertil Steril 1994; 61: 972–5.
13. DickeyRP, OlarTT, TaylorSN, CuroleDN, MatulichEM. Relationship of endometrial thickness and pattern to fecundity in ovulation induction cycles: effect of clomiphene citrate alone and with human menopausal gonadotropin. Fertil Steril 1993; 59: 756–60.
14. DickeyRP, OlarTT, TaylorSN, CuroleDN, HarrigillK. Relationship of biochemical pregnancy to preovulatory endometrial thickness and pattern in patients undergoing ovulation induction. Hum Reprod 1993; 8: 327–30.
15. DickeyRP, OlarTT, CuroleDN, TaylorSN, RyePH. Endometrial pattern and thickness associated with pregnancy outcome after assisted reproduction technologies. Hum Reprod 1992; 7: 418–21.
16. SundstromP. Establishment of a successful pregnancy following in-vitro fertilization with an endometrial thickness of no more than 4 mm. Hum Reprod 1998; 13: 1550–2.
17. ShohamZ, De CarloC, PatelA, ConwayGS, JacobsHS. Is it possible to run a successful ovulation induction program based solely on ultrasound monitoring? The importance of endometrial measurements. Fertil Steril 1991; 56: 836–41.
18. CheckJH, NowrooziK, ChoeJ, LurieD, DietterichC. The effect of endometrial thickness and echo pattern on in vitro fertilization outcome in donor oocyte-embryo transfer cycle. Fertil Steril 1993; 59: 72–5.
19. IsaacsJD, WellsCS, WilliamsDB, OdemRR, GastMJ, StricklerRC. Endometrial thickness is a valid monitoring parameter in cycles of ovulation induction with menotropins alone. Fertil Steril 1996; 65: 262–6.
20. WeissmanA, GotliebL, CasperRF. The detrimental effect of increased endometrial thickness on implantation and pregnancy rates and outcome in an in vitro fertilization program. Fertil Steril 1999; 71, 147–9.
21. KramplE, FeichtingerWEndometrial thickness and echo patterns. Hum Reprod 1993; 8: 1339.
22. MansourRT, AboulgharMA, SerourGI, RiadR. Fluid accumulation of the uterine cavity before transfer: a possible hindrance for implantation. J IVF-ET 1991; 8: 157–9.
23. LassA, WilliamsG, AbusheikhaN, BrinsdenP. The effect of endometrial polyps on outcomes of in vitro fertilization cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet 1999; 16: 410–15.
24. BouéJ, BouéA, LazarP. Retrospective and prospective epidemiological studies of 1500 karyotyped spontaneous human abortions. Teratology 1973; 12: 11–26.
25. HsiehYY, TsalHD, ChangCC, LoHY, ChenCL. Low-dose aspirin for infertile women with thin endometrium receiving intrauterine insemination: a prospective randomized study. J Assist Reprod Genet 2000; 17: 174–7.
26. DickeyRP, BrinsdenPR, and PyrzakR, eds., Manual of Intrauterine Insemination and Ovulation Induction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

References

1. SladkeviciusP, CampbellS. Advanced ultrasound examination in the management of subfertility. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2000; 12(3): 221–5.
2. KaganK, ToM, TsoiE, et al. Preterm birth: the value of sonographic measurement of cervical length. BJOG 2006; 113(s3): 5–56.
3. Di SaiaPJ. Disorders of uterine cervix. In: ScottJR, DiSaiaP, HammondCB, et al., eds. Danforth’s Obstetrics and Gynecology, 7th ed. Philadephia, PA: JB Lippincott, 1994.
4. SekyiaT, YoshimatsuK, et al. Detection rate of the cervical gland area during pregnancy by transvaginal sonography in the assessment of cervical maturation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998; 12: 328.
5. YoshimatsuK, SekiyaT, IshiharaK, FukamiT, OtabeT, ArakiT. Detection of the cervical gland area in threatened preterm labor using transvaginal sonography in the assessment of cervical maturation and the outcome of pregnancy. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2002; 53(3): 149–56.
6. PiresCR, MoronAF, MattarR, et al. Cervical gland area as an ultrasonographic marker for preterm delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2006; 93(3): 214–19.
7. RizkB, SteerC, TanSL, MasonBA.Vaginal versus abdominal ultrasound guided oocyte retrieval in IVF. Br J Radiol 1990; 63: 638.
8. SteerC, RizkBTanSL, MasonBA. Vaginal versus abdominal ultrasound for obtaining uterine artery Doppler flow velocity waveforms. Br J Radiol 1990; 63: 398–9.
9. SteerC, RizkBTanSL, MasonBA, CampbellS. Vaginal colour Doppler assessment of uterine artery impedance in subfertile population. Br J Radiol 1990; 63: 638.
10. QureshiIA, UllahH, AkramMH, et al. Transvaginal versus transabdominal sonography in the evaluation of pelvic pathology. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2004; 14(7): 390–3.
11. ToMS, SkentouC, CiceroS, et al. Cervical assessment at the routine 23-weeks’ scan: problems with transabdominal sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 15(4): 292–6.
12. AndersenHF. Transvaginal and transabdominal ultrasonography of the uterine cervix during pregnancy. J Clin Ultrasound 1991; 19(2): 77–83.
13. RaungrongmorakotK, TanmounN, RuangvutilertP, et al. Correlation of uterine cervical length measurement from transabdominal, transperineal and transvaginal ultrasonography. J Med Assoc Thai 2004; 87(3): 326–32.
14. CiceroS, SkentouC, SoukaA, ToMS, NicolaidesKH. Cervical length at 22–24 weeks of gestation: comparison of transvaginal and transperineal-translabial ultrasonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 17(4): 335–40.
15. KurtzmanJT, GoldsmithLJ, GallSA, SpinnatoJA. Transperineal ultrasonography: a blinded comparison in the assessment of cervical length at midgestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998; 179(4): 852–7.
16. OzdemirI, DemirciF, YucelO. Transperineal versus transvaginal ultrasonographic evaluation of the cervix at each trimester in normal pregnant women. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2005; 45(3): 191–4.
17. CarrDB, SmithK, ParsonsL, et al. Ultrasonography for cervical length measurement: agreement between transvaginal and translabial techniques. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 96(4): 554–8.
18. CarlanSJ, RichmondLB, O’BrienWF. Randomized trial of endovaginal ultrasound in preterm premature rupture of membranes. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 89 (3): 458–61.
19. Timor-TritschIR, YunisRA. Confirming the safety of transvaginal sonography in patients suspected of placenta previa. Obstet Gynecol, 1993; 81: 742.
20. BajoJ, Moreno-CalvoFJ, Uguet-de-ResayreC, et al. Contribution of transvaginal sonography to the evaluation of benign cervical conditions. J Clin Ultrasound 1999; 27(2): 61–4.
21. MansourR. T, AboulgharMA. Optimizing the embryo transfer technique. Hum Reprod 2002; 17(5): 1149–53.
22. WongsawaengW. Transvaginalultrasonography, sonohysterography and hysteroscopy for intrauterine pathology in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding. J Med Assoc Thai 2005; 88(Suppl. 3): S77–81.
23. LeoneFP, LanzaniC, FerrazziE. Use of strict sonohysterographic methods for preoperative assessment of submucous myomas. Fertil Steril 2003; 79(4): 998–1002.
24. GrimbizisGF, CamusM, TarlatzisBC, et al. Clinical implication of uterine malformations and hysteroscopic treatment results. Hum Reprod Update 2001; 7(2) 161–74.
25. ValdesC, MaliniS, MalikanakLR. Ultrasound evaluation of female genital tract anomalies: a review of 64 cases. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1984; 47: 89–93.
26. NicoliniU, BellottiM, BonazziB, et al. Can ultrasound be used to screen uterine malformations?Fertil Steril 1987; 47: 89–93
27. ReuterKL, DalyDC, CohenSM.Septate versus bicornuate uteri: errors in imaging diagnosis. Radiology 1989; 172: 749–52.
28. Randoph JFJr, YingYK, MaierDB, et al. Comparison of real time ultrasonography, hysterosalpingopraphy, and laparoscopy/hysteroscopy in the evaluation of uterine abnormalities and tubal patency. Fertil Steril 1986; 5: 828–32.
29. RagaF, Bonilla-MusolesF, BlanesJ, et al. Congenital mullerian anomalies: diagnostic accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound. Fertil Steril 1996; 65: 523–8.
30. WuMH, Hsu CC HuangKE. Detection of congenital mullerian duct anomalies using three-dimensional ultrasound. J Clin Ultrasound 1997; 25: 487–92.
31. AiroldiJ, BerghellaV, SehdevH, et al. Transvaginal ultrasonography of the cervix to predict preterm birth in women with uterine anomalies. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 106(3): 553–6.
32. JacksonRA, GibsonKA, WuYW, et al. Perinatal outcomes in singletons following in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103(3): 551–63.
33. PinborgA, LoftA, Nyboe AndersenA. Neonatal outcome in a Danish national cohort of 8602 children born after in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection: the role of twin pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2004; 83(11): 1071–8.
34. AllenVM, WilsonRD, CheungA.Pregnancy outcomes after assisted reproductive technology. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2006; 28(3): 220–50.
35. AboulgharMM, AboulgharMA, MouradL, SerourGI. Ultrasound cervical measurement and prediction of spontaneous preterm birth in ICSI pregnancies: a prospective controlled study. Reprod Biomed Online February 2009; 18(2): 296–300.
36. MatijevicR, GrgicO, VasiljO. Is sonographic assessment of cervical length better than digital examination in screening for preterm delivery in a low-risk population?Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2006; 85(11): 1342–7.
37. GuzmanER, WaltersC, AnanthCV, et al. A comparison of sonographic cervical parameters in predicting spontaneous preterm birth in high-risk singleton gestations. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18(3): 204–10.
38. HeathVC, SouthallTR, SoukaAP, ElisseouA, NicolaidesKH. Cervical length at 23 weeks of gestation: prediction of spontaneous preterm delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998; 12(5): 312–17.
39. LeungTN, PangMW, LeungTY, PoonCF, WongSM, LauTK. Cervical length at 18–22 weeks of gestation for prediction of spontaneous preterm delivery in Hong Kong Chinese women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 26(7): 713–17.
40. CookCM, EllwoodDA. The cervix as a predictor of preterm delivery in ’at-risk’ women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000; 15(2): 109–13.
41. IamsJD, GoldenbergRL, MeisPJ, et al. The length of the cervix and the risk of spontaneous premature delivery. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal Fetal Medicine Unit Network. N Engl J Med 1996; 334(9): 567–72.
42. KikuchiA, KozumaS, MarumoG, et al. Local dynamic changes of the cervix associated with incomptent cervix before and after Shirodkar’s operation. J Clin Ultrasound 1998; 26: 371.
43. ParulekarSG, KiwiR.Dynamic incompetent cervix uteri: sonographic observations. J Ultrasound Med 1988; 7(9): 481–5.
44. RustOA, AtlasRO, KimmelS, et al. Does the presence of a funnel increase the risk of adverse perinatal outcome in a patient with a short cervix?Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192(4): 1060–6.
45. VayssiereC, FavreR, AudibertF, et al. Cervical length and funneling at 22 and 27 weeks to predict spontaneous birth before 32 weeks in twin pregnancies: a French prospective multicenter study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 187(6): 1596–604.
46. BerghellaV, KuhlmanK, WeinerS, et al. Cervical funneling: sonographic criteria predictive of preterm delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997; 10(3): 161–6.
47. ToMS, SkentouC, LiaoAW, et al. Cervical length and funneling at 23 weeks of gestation in the prediction of spontaneous early preterm delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18(3): 200–3.
48. BergelinI, ValentinL. Cervical changes in twin pregnancies observed by transvaginal ultrasound during the latter half of pregnancy: a longitudinal, observational study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 21(6): 556–63.
49. BergelinI, ValentinL. Normal cervical changes in parous women during the second half of pregnancy – a prospective, longitudinal ultrasound study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2002; 81(1): 31–8.
50. TsoiE, AkmalS, RaneS, et al. Ultrasound assessment of cervical length in threatened preterm labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 21(6): 552–5.
51. FuchsIB, HenrichW, OsthuesK, DudenhausenJW.Sonographic cervical length in singleton pregnancies with intact membranes presenting with threatened preterm labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 24(5): 554–7.
52. ConoscentiG, MeirYJ, D’OttavioG, et al. Does cervical length at 13–15 weeks’ gestation predict preterm delivery in an unselected population?Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 21(2): 128–34.
53. CarvalhoMH, BittarRE, BrizotML, et al. Cervical length at 11–14 weeks’ and 22–24 weeks’ gestation evaluated by transvaginal sonography, and gestational age at delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 21(2): 135–9.
54. CoroleuB, CarrerasO, VeigaA, et al. Embryo transfer under ultrasound guidance improves pregnancy rates after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 2000; 15(3): 616–20.
55. MatorrasR, UrquijoE, MendozaR, et al. Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer improves pregnancy rates and increases the frequency of easy transfers. Hum Reprod 2002; 17(7): 1762–6.
56. FlisserE, GrifoJA, KreyLC.Transabdominal ultrasound-assisted embryo transfer and pregnancy outcome. Fertil Steril 2006; 85(2): 353–7.
57. AbousettaA, MansourRT, El InanyH, et al. Among women undergoing embryo transfer is the probability of pregnancy and live birth improved with ultrasound guided over clinical touch alone? A systematic review of meta-analysis of prospective randomized trials. Fertil Steril 2007; 88(2): 333–41
58. BrownJA, BuckinghamK, Abou-settaA, et al. Ultrasound versus clinical touch for catheter guidance during embryo transfer in women (Review). Cochrane Library 2007; issue 1.
59. LorussoF, DepaloR, BettocchiS, et al. Outcome of in vitro fertilization after transabdominal ultrasound-assisted embryo transfer with a full or empty bladder. Fertil Steril 2005; 84(4): 1046–8.
60. SallamHN, AgameyaAF, RahmanAF, et al. Ultrasound measurement of the uterocervical angle before embryo transfer: a prospective controlled study. Hum Reprod 2002; 17(7): 1767–72.
61. RomundstadLB, RomundstadPR, SundeA, et al. Increased risk of placenta previa in pregnancies following IVF/ICSI; a comparison of ART and non-ART pregnancies in the same mother. Hum Reprod 2006; 21(9): 2353–8.
62. ChamaCM, WanonyiIK, UsmanJD.From low-lying implantation to placenta praevia: a longitudinal ultrasonic assessment. J Obstet Gynaecol 2004; 24(5): 516–18.
63. SmithRS, LauriaMR, ComstockCH, et al. Transvaginal ultrasonography for all placentas that appear to be low-lying or over the internal cervical os. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997; 9(1): 22–4.
64. GhorabS. Third-trimester transvaginal ultrasonography in placenta previa: does the shape of the lower placental edge predict clinical outcome?Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18(2): 103–8.
65. HeerIM, Muller-EgloffS, StraussA. Placenta praevia – comparison of four sonographic modalities. Ultraschall Med 2006; 27(4): 355–9.
66. TanNH, AbuM, WooJL, TahirHM. The role of transvaginal sonography in the diagnosis of placenta praevia. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1995; 35(1): 42–5.
67. SunnaE, ZiadehS. Transvaginal and transabdominal ultrasound for the diagnosis of placenta praevia. J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 19(2): 152–4.
68. ChenJM, ZhouQC, WangRR. Value of transvaginal sonography in diagnosis of placenta previa. Hunan Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao 2001; 26(3): 289–90.
69. BhideA, PrefumoF, MooreJ, et al. Placental edge to internal os distance in the late third trimester and mode of delivery in placenta praevia. BJOG. 2003; 110(9): 860–4.
70. DawsonWB, DumasMD, RomanoWM, et al: Translabial ultrasonography and placenta praevia: does measurement of the os-placenta distance predict outcome?J Ultrasound Med 1996; 15: 441.
71. OpeheimerLW, FarineD, RitchieJW, et al. What is a low lying placenta. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991; 165: 1036.
72. FungTY, LauTK. Poor perinatal outcome associated with vasa previa: Is it preventable? A report of three cases and review of literature. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998; 12(6): 430–3
73. NomiyamaM, ToyotaY, KawanoH. Antenatal diagnosis of velamentous umbilical cord insertion and vasa previa with color Doppler imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1998; 12: 426–9
74. PentD.Vasa previa. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1979; 134: 151–5.
75. AntoineC, YounBK, SilvermanF, et al. Sinusoidal fetal heart rate pattern with vasa previa in twin pregnancy. J Reprod Med 1982; 27: 295–300
76. CoderoDR, HelgottAW, LandyHJ, et al. Non hemorrhagic manifestation of vasa previa. A clinicopathologic case. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 82: 689–701.
77. YoungM, YuN, BarhamK. The role of light and sound technologies in the detection of vasa previa. Reprod Fertil dev 1991; 3: 439–51
78. CatanzariteV, MaidaC, ThomasW, et al. Prenatal sonographic diagnosis of vasa previa: ultrasound findings and obstetric outcome in ten cases. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18(2): 109–15.
79. BaschatAA. Ante and intrapartum diagnosis of vasa praevia in singleton pregnancies by colour coded Doppler sonography. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1998; 79(1): 19–25.
80. OyeleseY, CatanzariteV, PrefumoF, et al. Vasa previa: the impact of prenatal diagnosis on outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103(5 Pt 1): 937–42.
81. BurtonG, SaundersDM. Vasa praevia: another cause for concern in in vitro fertilization pregnancies. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1988; 28(3): 180–1.
82. EnglertY, ImbertMC, Van RosendaelE, et al. Morphological anomalies in the placentae of IVF pregnancies: preliminary report of a multicentric study. Hum Reprod 1987; 2(2): 155–7.
83. PyrgiotisE, SultanKM, NealGS, LiuHC, GrifoJA, RosenwaksZ.Ectopic pregnancies after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet 1994; 11(2): 79–84.
84. GinsburgES, FratesMC, ReinMS, et al. Early diagnosis and treatment of cervical pregnancy in an in vitro fertilization program. Fertil Steril 1994; 61(5): 966–9.
85. RizkB, BrindsenPR. Embryo migration responsible for ectopic pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gyneciol 1990; 163(4): 1639.
86. AboulgharM, RizkB. Ultrasonography of the cervix. In: RizkB, ed. Ultrasonography in Reproductive Medicine and Infertility, chapter 16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008; 143–151.
87. UshakovFB, ElchalalU, AcemanPJ, et al. Cervical pregnancy: past and future. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1997; 52(1): 45–59.
88. KimTJ, SeongSJ, LeeKJ, et al. Clinical outcomes of patients treated for cervical pregnancy with or without methotrexate. J Korean Med Sci 2004; 19(6): 848–52.
89. DoekhieBM, SchatsR, HompesPG.Cervical pregnancy treated with local methotrexate. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2005; 122(1): 128–30.
90. ShererDM, LysikiewiczA, AbulafiaO.Viable cervical pregnancy managed with systemic Methotrexate, uterine artery embolization, and local tamponade with inflated Foley catheter balloon. Am J Perinatol 2003; 20(5): 263–7.
91. MitraAG, Harris-OwensM. Conservative medical management of advanced cervical ectopic pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2000; 55(6): 385–9.
92. PascualMA, RuizJ, TresserraF, et al. Cervical ectopic twin pregnancy: diagnosis and conservative treatment: case report. Hum Reprod 2001; 16(3): 584–6.
93. HassiakosD, BakasP, CreatsasG. Cervical pregnancy treated with transvaginal ultrasound-guided intra-amniotic instillation of methotrexate. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2005; 271(1): 69–72
94. YildizhanB. Diagnosis and treatment of early cervical pregnancy: a case report and literature review. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2005; 32(4): 254–6.
95. KirkE, CondousG, HaiderZ, SyedA, OjhaK, BourneT. The conservative management of cervical ectopic pregnancies. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006; 27(4): 430–7.

References

1. CoveneyD, CoolJ, OliverT, CapelB. Four-dimensional analysis of vascularisation during primary development of an organ, the gonad. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2008; 105(20): 7212–17.
2. GuerrieroS, AjossaS, MelisG. Luteal dynamics during the human menstrual cycle: new insight from imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 25(5): 425–7.
3. OttanderU, SolenstenN, BerghA, OlofssonJ. Intra-ovarian blood flow measured with color Doppler ultrasonography inversely correlates with vascular density in the human corpus luteum of the menstrual cycle. Fertil Steril 2004; 81(1): 154–9.
4. JokubkieneL, SladkeviciusP, RovasL, ValentinL. Assessment of changes in volume and vascularity of the ovaries during the normal menstrual cycle using three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound. Hum Reprod 2006; 21(10): 2661–8.
5. TekayA, MartikainenH, JouppilasP. Blood flow changes in uterine and ovarian vasculature and predictive value of transvaginal pulsed color Doppler ultrasonography in an in vitro fertilization program. Hum Reprod 1996; 10: 688–93.
6. CampbellS, BourneTH, WaterstoneJ, et al. Transvaginal color flow imaging of the peri-ovulatory follicle. Fertil Steril 1993; 60(3): 433–8.
7. KurjakA, KupesicS, SchulmanH, et al. Transvaginal color flow Doppler in the assessment of ovarian and uterine blood flow in infertile women. Fertil Steril 1991; 56: 870–3.
8. LunenfeldE, SchwartzI, MeiznerI, PotashnikG, GlezermanM.Intra-ovarian blood flow during spontaneous and stimulated cycles. Hum Reprod 1996; 11(11): 2481–3.
9. KupesicS, KurjakA. Uterine and ovarian perfusion during the peri-ovulatory period assessed by transvaginal color Doppler. Fertil Steril 1993; 60(3): 439–43.
10. BalakierH, StronellRD. Color Doppler assessment of folliculogenesis in vitro fertilization patients. Fertil Steril 1994; 62(6): 1211–16.
11. TekayA, MartikainenH, JouppilasP. The clinical value of transvaginal color Doppler ultrasound in assisted reproductive technology procedure. Hum Reprod 1996; 11: 1589–93.
12. ChuiD, PughN, WalkerS, GregoryL, ShawR. Follicular vascularity – the predictive value of transvaginal power Doppler ultrasonography in an in vitro fertilization program: A preliminary study. Hum Reprod 1997; 12(1): 191–6.
13. WiltbankM, GallagherK, ChristensenA, BrabecR, KeyesP. Physiological and immunocytochemical evidence for a new concept of blood flow regulation in the corpus luteum. Biol Reprod. 1990; 42(1): 139–49.
14. BassilS, WynsC, Toussaint-DemylleD, NisolleM, GordtsS, DonnezJ. The relationship between ovarian vascularity and the duration of stimulation in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1997; 12(6): 1240–5.
15. NakagawaK, OhgiS, KojimaR, et al. Reduction of peri-follicular arterial blood flow resistance after hCG administration is a good indicator of the recovery of mature oocytes in ART treatment. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2006; 23(11–12): 433–8.
16. NargundG, DoylePE, BourneTH, et al. Ultrasound derived indices of follicular blood flow before HCG administration and prediction of oocyte recovery and pre-implantation embryo quality. Hum Reprod 1996; 11(11): 2512–17.
17. CostelloM, ShresthaS, SjoblomP, et al. Power Doppler ultrasound assessment of ovarian perifollicular blood flow in women with polycystic ovaries and normal ovaries during in vitro fertilization treatment. Fertil Steril 2005; 83(4): 945–54.
18. OyesanyaO, ParsonsJ, CollinsW, CampbellS. Prediction of oocyte recovery rate by transvaginal and color Doppler imaging before human chorionic gonadotropin administration in in-vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril 1996; 65(4): 806–9.
19. CoulamC, GoodmanC, RinehartJ. Color Doppler indices of follicular blood flow as predictors of pregnancy after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 1999; 14(8): 1979–82.
20. Van BlerkomJ, AntezakM, SchraderR. The developmental potential of the human oocyte is related to the dissolved oxygen content of follicular fluid: association with vascular endothelial growth factor levels and perifollicular blood flow characteristics. Hum Reprod 1997; 12(5): 1047–55.
21. GauldenM. Maternal age effect: the enigma of Down syndrome and other trisomic conditions. Mutat Res 1992; 296(1–2): 69–88.
22. Van BlerkomJ, DavisP, AlexanderS.Inner mitochondrial membrane potential (DeltaPsim), cytoplasmic ATP content and free Ca2+ levels in metaphase II mouse oocytes. Hum Reprod 2003; 18(11): 2429–40.

References

1. BarbieriRL. Etiology and epidemiology of endometriosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 162: 565–7.
2. NargundG. Ovarian pathology. In: NargundG, ed. Avanced Ultrasound in Reproductive Medicine: A Theoretical and Practical Workshop. London; HER Trust, 2006; 10–14.
3. Revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine Classification of Endometriosis: 1996. Fertil Steril 1997; 67: 817–21.
4. OliveDL, PrittsEA. Treatment of endometriosis. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 266–75.
5. BrosensI, PuttemansP, CampoR, GordtsS, KinkelK. Diagnosis of endometriosis: pelvis endoscopy and imaging techniques. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2004; 18: 285–303.
6. BazotM, DaraiE, HouraniR, et al. Deep pelvis endometriosis: MR imaging for diagnosis and prediction of extension of disease. Radiology 2004; 232: 379–89.
7. ValentinL. Imaging in gynecology. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2006; 20: 881–906.
8. KurjakA, KupesicS. Scoring system for prediction of ovarian endometriosis based on transvaginal color and pulsed Doppler sonography. Fertil Steril 1994; 62: 81–8.
9. AlcázarJL, LaparteC, JuradoM, López-GarcíaG. The role of transvaginal ultrasonography combined with color velocity imaging and pulsed Doppler in diagnosis of endometrioma. Fertil Steril 1997; 67: 487–91.
10. GuerrieroS, AjossaS, MaisV, RisalvatoA, LaiMP, MelisGB. The diagnosis of endometriomas using colour Doppler energy imaging. Hum Reprod 1998; 13: 1691–5.
11. WuTT, CoakleyFV, QayyumA, YehBM, JoeBN, ChenLM. Magnetic resonance imaging of ovarian cancer arising in endometriomas. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2004; 28: 836–8.
12. BazotM, BornierC, DubernardG, RoseauG, CortezA, DaraiE. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and rectal endoscopic sonography for the prediction of location of deep pelvic endometriosis. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 1457–63.
13. Raine-FenningN. Three-dimensional ultrasonographic characteristics of endometrioma. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008: 31: 718–24.
14. HornsteinMD, HarlowBL, ThomasPP, CheckJH. Use of a new CA 125 assay in the diagnosis of endometriosis. Hum Reprod 1995; 10: 932–4.
15. MolBW, BayramN, LijmerJG, et al. The performance of CA-125 measurement in the detection of endometriosis: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 1998; 70: 1101–8.
16. ShwayerJM. Pelvic pain, adnexal masses, and ultrasound. Sem Reprod Med 2008; 26: 252–65.
17. PatelM, FeldsteinV, ChenD, LipsonS, FillyR. Endometriomas: diagnostic performance of US radiology 1999; 3: 739–45.
18. BazotM, ThomassinI, HouraniR, CortezA, DaraiE. Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal sonography for deep pelvic endometriosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 24: 180–5.
19. MenadaMV, RemorgidaV, AbbamonteLH, FulcheriE, RagniN, FerreroS. Transvaginal ultrasonography combined with water-contrast in the rectum in the diagnosis of rectovaginal endometriosis infiltrating the bowel, Fertil Steril 2008; 89: 699–700.
20. DueholmM. Transvaginal ultrasound for diagnosis of adenomyosis: a review. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2006; 20: 569–82.
21. ReinholdC, McCarthyS, BretPM, et al. Diffuse adenomyosis: comparison of endovaginal US and MR imaging with histopathologic correlation. Radiology 1996; 199: 151–8.
22. BazotM, CortezA, DaraiE, et al. Ultrasonography compared with magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis of adenomyosis. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 2427–33.
23. DueholmM, LundorfE, HansenES, SørensenJS, LedertougS, OlesenF. Magnetic resonance imaging and transvaginal ultrasonography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis. Fertil Steril 2001; 76:588–94.
24. ReinholdC, AtriH, MehioA, AkarianR, IldisA, BretP. Difusse uterine adenomiosis: morphologic criteria and diagnostic accuracy of endovaginal sonography. Radiology 1995; 197: 609–14.
25. Al-AzemiM, BernalAL, SteeleJ, GramsbergenI, BarlowD, KennedyS. Ovarian response to repeated controlled stimulation in in-vitro fertilization cycles in patients with ovarian endometriosis. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 72–5.
26. Garcia-VelascoJA, SomiglianaE. Management of endometriomas in women requiring IVF: to touch or not to touch. Hum Reprod 2009; 24(3): 496–501.

References

1. BordmanR, Jackson, B. Below the belt: approach to chronic pelvic pain. Can Fam Physician 2006; 52: 1556–62.
2. StonesRW, PriceC. Health services for women with chronic pelvic pain. J R Soc Med 2002; 95: 531–5.
3. MathiasSD, KuppermannM, LibermanRF, LipschutzRC, SteegeJF. Chronic pelvic pain: prevalence, health-related quality of life, and economic correlates. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 87: 321–7.
4. ZondervanKT, YudkinPL, VesseyMP, et al. The community prevalence of chronic pelvic pain in women and associated illness behaviour. Br J Gen Pract 2001; 51: 541–7.
5. TocciA, GrecoE, UbaldiFM. Adenomyosis and “endometrial-subendometrial myometrium unit disruption disease” are two different entities. Reprod Biomed Online 2008; 17: 281–91.
6. GordtsS, BrosensJJ, FusiL, et al. Uterine adenomyosis: a need for uniform terminology and consensus classification. Reprod Biomed Online 2008; 17: 244–8.
7. VermaSK, Lev-ToaffAS, BaltarowichOH, et al. Adenomyosis: sonohysterography with MRI correlation. AJR 2009; 192: 1112–16.
8. ReinholdC, McCarthyS, BretPM, et al. Diffuse adenomyosis: comparison of endovaginal US and MR imaging with histopathologic correlation. Radiology 1996; 199: 151–8.
9. MeredithSM, Sanchez-RamosL, KaunitzAM. Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal sonography for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 200: 107.e1–6.
10. YenielO, CirpanT, UlukusM, et al. Adenomyosis: prevalence, risk factors, symptoms and clinical findings. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2007; 34: 163–7.
11. SimpsonJL, EliasS, MalinakLR, ButtramVCJr. Heritable aspects of endometriosis. Genetic studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980; 137: 327–31.
12. HoML, RaptisM, HulettR, et al. Adenomyotic cyst of the uterus in an adolescent; a case report. Pediatr Radiol 2008; 38: 1239–42.
13. Gerson WeissMD, MaseelallP, SchottLL, et al. Adenomyosis a variant, not a disease? Evidence from hysterectomized menopausal women in the Study of Women’s Health Across the Nation (SWAN)Fertil Steril 2009; 91: 201–6.
14. GrahamKJ, HulstFA, VogelnestL, FraserIS, ShiltonCM. Uterine adenomyosis in an orang-utan (Pongo abelii/pygmaeus). Aust Vet J 2009; 87: 66–9.
15. DeVriesK, LyonsEA, BallardG, LeviCS, LindsayDJ. Contractions of the inner third of the myometrium. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 612: 679–82.
16. EgliGE, NewtonM. The transport of carbon particles in the human female reproductive tract. Fertil Steril 1961; 12: 151–5.
17. Laoag-FernandezJB, MaruoT, PakarinenP, SpitzIM, JohanssonE. Effects of levonorgestrel-releasing intra-uterine system on the expression of vascular endothelial growth factor and adrenomedullin in the endometrium in adenomyosis. Hum Reprod 2003; 18: 694–9.
18. ChoS, NamA, KimH, et al. Clinical effects of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device in patients with adenomyosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 198: 373.
19. KitamuraY, AllisonSJ, JhaRC, et al. MRI of adenomyosis. Changes with uterine artery embolization. AJR 2006; 186: 855–64.

References

1. LeeDM, OsathanondhR, YehJ. Localization of Bcl-2 in the human fetal Müllerian tract. Fertil Steril 1998; 70: 135–40.
2. The American Fertility Society classifications of adenexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondry to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, Mullerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril 1998; 49: 944–55.
3. ButtramVC, GibbonsWE. Mullerian anomalies: a proposed classification (an analysis of 144 cases); Fertil Steril 1979; 32: 40–8.
4. NahumGG. Uterine anomalies. How common are they and what is their distribution among subtypes?J Reprod Med 1998; 43: 877–87.
5. RagaF, Bonilla-MusolesF, BlanesJ. Congenital Mullerian anomalies: diagnostic accuracy of three-dimensional ultrasound. Fertil Steril 1996 Mar; 65(3): 523–8.
6. ByrneJ, Nussbaum-BlaskA, TaylorWS. Prevalence of Mullerian duct anomalies detected at ultrasound. Am J Med Genet 2000; 94: 9–12.
7. MazouniC, GirardG, DeterR. Diagnosis of Mullerian anomalies in adults: evaluation of practice. Fertil Steril 2008; 89(1): 219–22
8. BraunP, GrauFV, PonsRM. Is hysterosalpingography able to diagnose all uterine malformations correctly? A retrospective study. Eur J Radiol 2005; 53: 274–9.
9. AppelmanZ, HazanY, HagayZ. High prevalence of Mullerian anomalies diagnosed by ultrasound in women with polycystic ovaries. J Reprod Med. 2003; 48(5): 362–4.
10. OppeltP, vonHaveM, PaulsenM. Female genital malformations and their associated abnormalities. Fertil Steril 2007 Feb; 87(2): 335–42.
11. SoaresSR, Barbosados ReisMB, CamargosAF. Diagnostic accuracy of sonohysterography, transvaginal sonography and hysterosalpingography in patients with uterine cavity diseases. Fertil Steril 2000; 73: 406–11.
12. BarbotJ. Hysteroscopy and hysterography. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1995; 22: 591–603.
13. ReuterKL, DalyDC, CohenSM.Septate versus bicornuate uteri: errors in imaging diagnosis. Radiology 1989; 172: 749–52.
14. GolanA, Ron-ElR, HermanA.Diagnostic hysteroscopy: its value in an in vitro fertilization/embryo transfer unit. Hum Reprod 1992; 7: 1433–4.
15. QureshiIA, UllahH, AkramMH, AshfaqS, NayyarS. Transvaginal versus transabdominal sonography in the evaluation of pelvic pathology. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2004; 14(7): 390–3
16. PelleritoJS, Mc CarthySM, DoyleMB. Diagnosis of uterine anomalies: relative accuracy of MR imaging, endovginal sonography and hysterosalpingography. Radiology 1992; 183: 795–800.
17. NicoliniU, BellottiM, BonazziB.Can ultrasound be used to screen uterine malformations?Fertil Steril 1987; 47; 89–93.
18. JurkovicD, GeipelA, GruboekK. Three-dimensional ultrasound for the assessment of uterine anatomy and detection of congenital anomalies: a comparison with hysterosalpingography and two-dimensional sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995; 5(4): 219–21.
19. WuMH, HsuCC, HuangKF. Detection of congenital mullerian duct anomalies using three-dimentional ultrasound. J Clin Utrasound 1997; 25(9): 487–92.
20. SalimR, WoelferB, BackostM. Reproducibility of three-dimensional ultrasound diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies. Ultrasound Obstset Gynecol 2003; 21: 578–82.
21. AlborziS, DehbashiS, ParsanezhadME. Differential dagnosis f septate and bicornuate uterus by sonohysterography eliminates the need for laparoscopy. Fertil Steril 2002; 78: 176–8.
22. FedeleL, ArcainiL, ParazziniF.Reproductive prognosis after hysteroscopic metroplasty in 102 women: life table analysis. Fertil Steril 1993; 59: 768–72.
23. ValenzanoMM, MistrangeloE, LijoiD. Transvaginal sonohysterographic evaluation of uterine malformations. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006 Feb; 124(2): 246–9.
24. Lev-ToaffAS, PinheiroLW, BegaG.Three-dimensional multiplanar sonohysterography: comparison with conventional two-dimensional sonohysterography and X-ray hysterosalpingography. J Ultrasound Med 2001; 20(4): 295–306.
25. SylvestreC, ChildTJ, TulandiT. A prospective study to evaluate the efficacy of two- and three-dimensional sonohysterography in women with intrauterine lesions. Fertil Steril 2003; 79(5): 1222–5.
26. Guimarães FilhoHA, MattarR, PiresCR. Comparison of hysterosalpingography, hysterosonography and hysteroscopy in evaluation of the uterine cavity in patients with recurrent pregnancy losses. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2006; 274(5): 284–8.
27. KupesicS, KurjakA. Septate uterus: Detection and prediction of obstetrical complications by different forms of ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med 1998; 17: 631–6.

References

1. MitwallyM, AbuzeidM. Operative hysteroscopy for uterine septum. In: RizkB, Garcia VelascoJA, SallamH, MakrigiannakisA, eds. Infertility and Assisted Reproduction, chapter 13. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008; 115–31.
2. PattonPE.Anatomic uterine defects. Clin Obst Gynecol 1994; 37: 705–21.
3. McBeanJH, BrumstedJR.Septate uterus with cervical duplication: a rare malformation. Fertil Steril 1994; 62: 415–17.
4. MarchChM.Mullerian anomalies. Fertil News 24/1. Endocrine Fertil Forum 1990; 13: 1–5.
5. ErgunA, PabuccuR.AtayV, et al. Three sisters with septate uteri: another reference to bidirectional theory. Hum Reprod 1997; 12: 140–2.
6. MullerPP, MussetR, NetterA, et al. État du haut appareil urinaire chez les porteuses de malformations uterines: etude de 133 observations. La Presse Med 1967; 75: 1331–6.
7. AcienP. Incidence of Müllerian defects in fertile and infertile women. Hum Reprod 1997; 12: 1372–6.
8. ManeschiF, ZupiE, MarconiD, et al. Hysteroscopically detected asymptomatic Müllerian anomalies. J Reprod Med 1995; 40: 684–8.
9. AshtonD, AminHK, RichartRM, et al. The incidence of asymptomatic uterine anomalies in women undergoing transcervical tubal sterilization. Obstet Gynecol 1988; 72: 28–30.
10. RagaF, BausetC, RemohiJ et al. (1997). Reproductive impact of congenital Müllerian anomalies. Hum Reprod 12: 2277–81.
11. NasriMN, SetchellME, ChardT. Transvaginal ultrasound for the diagnosis of uterine malformations. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1990; 97: 1043–5.
12. HeinonenPK. Reproductive performance of women with uterine anomalies after abdominal or hysteroscopic metroplasty or no surgical treatment, J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 1997; 4: 311–17.
13. GrimbizisGF, CamusM, TarlatzisBC, et al. Clinical implications of uterine malformations and hysteroscopic treatment results. Hum Reprod Update 2001; 7: 161–74.
14. HomerHA, CookeTCLi, ID. The septate uterus: a review of management and reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril 2000; 73: 1–14.
15. ButtramVC, GibbonsWE. Muellerian anomalies: a proposed classification (an analysis of 144 cases). Fertil Steril 1979; 32: 40–6.
16. The American Fertility Society. The American Fertility Society classifications of adnexal adhesions, distal tubal occlusion, tubal occlusion secondary to tubal ligation, tubal pregnancies, Müllerian anomalies and intrauterine adhesions. Fertil Steril 1988; 49: 944–55.
17. FayezJA.Comparison between abdominal and hysteroscopic metroplasty. Obstet Gynecol 1986; 68: 399–403.
18. DalyDC, MaierD, Soto-AlborsC.Hysteroscopic metroplasty: six years’ experience. Obstet Gynecol 1989; 73: 201–5.
19. MarchCM.Hysteroscopy as an aid to diagnosis in female infertility. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1983; 26: 302–12.
20. WorthenN, GonzalezF.Septate uterus: sonographic diagnosis and obstetric complications. Obstet Gynecol 1984; 64: 345–85.
21. PerinoA, MencagliaL, HamouJ, et al. Hysteroscopy for metroplasty of uterine septa: report of 24 cases. Fertil Steril 1987; 48: 321–3.
22. DabirashrafiH, BahadoriM, MohammadK, et al. Septate uterus: New idea on the histologic features of the septum in this abnormal uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 172: (1 pt 1): 105–7.
23. KupesicS, KurjakA.Septate uterus: detection and prediction of obstetrical complications by different forms of ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med 1998; 17: 631–6.
24. BaramkiT.Congenital uterine malformations. In: RizkB, Garcia VelascoJA, SallamH, MakrigiannakisA, eds. Infertility and Assisted Reproduction. Chapter 35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008; 327–31.
25. CarringtonBM, HricakH, NuruddinRN, et al. Müllerian duct anomalies: magnetic resonance imaging evaluation. Radiology 1990; 176: 715.
26. KupesicS.Clinical implications of sonographic detection of uterine anomalies for reproductive outcome. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 18: 387–400.
27. NicoliniU, BellottiM, BonazziB, et al. Can ultrasound be used to screen uterine malformations?Fertil Steril 1987; 47: 89–93.
28. KeltzMD, OliveDL, KimAH, et al. Sonohysterography for screening in recurrent pregnancy loss. Fertil Steril 1997; 67: 670–4.
29. SoaresSR, Barbosa dos ReisMMB, CamargosAF.Diagnostic accuracy of sonohysterography, transvaginal sonography, and hysterosalpingography in patients with uterine cavity diseases. Fertil Steril 2000; 73: 406–11.
30. ExaltoN, StappersC, van RaamsdonkLA, EmanuelMH.Gel instillation sonohysterography: first experience with a new technique. Fertil Steril 2007; 87: 152–5.
31. JurkovicD, GeipelA, GruboeckK, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound for the assessment of uterine anatomy and detection of congenital anomalies: a comparison with hysterosalpingography and two-dimensional sonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 5: 1995; 233–7.
32. JurkovicD, GruboeckK, TailorA, et al. Ultrasound screening for congenital uterine anomalies. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997; 104: 1320–1.
33. AbuzeidOM, SakhelK, AbuzeidMI.Diagnosis of various types of uterine septum in infertile patients. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2005; 12(5): 117.
34. HartmanA. Uterine imaging – malformations, fibroids and adenomyosis. Thirty-Ninth Annual Postgraduate Program, Course 17 Reproductive Imaging – How to Improve the Outcome of Assisted Reproductive Technology. New Orleans, Louisana; sponsored by ASRM, October 22, 2006.
35. WeinraubZ, MaymonR, ShulmanA, et al. Three-dimensional saline contrast hysterosonography and surface rendering of uterine cavity pathology. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1996; 8: 277–82.
36. Lev-ToaffAS, PinheiroLW, BegaG, et al. Three-dimensional multiplanar sonohysterography. J Ultrasound Med 2001; 20: 295–306.
37. AyidaG, KennedyS, BarlowD, et al. Contrast sonography for uterine cavity assessment: a comparison of conventional two-dimensional with three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound: a pilot study. Fertil Steril 1996; 66: 848–50.
38. KupesicS, KurjakA.Diagnosis and treatment outcome of the septate uterus. Croat Med J 1998; 39: 185–90.
39. ToaffME, Lev-ToaffAS.Communicating uteri: review and classification of two previously unreported types. Fertil Steril 1984; 41: 661–79.
40. AbuzeidM, MitwallyMF, AhmedA, et al. The prevalence of fimbrial pathology in patients with early stages of endometriosis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2007; 14: 49–53.
41. AbuzeidMI, SakhelK, KhedrM, et al. The association of endometriosis and uterine septum. Hum Reprod Suppl 2003; 1: P–610.
42. HirstBC.The operative treatment of uterus subseptus or semipartus with a case report. Trans Obstet Soc Phila1919: 891–2.
43. LuikartR.Technique of successful removal of the septum uterine septus and subsequent deliveries at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1936; 31: 797–9.
44. RockJA.Surgery for anomalies of the Müllerian ducts. In: ThompsonJD, RockJA, eds. Te Linde’s Operative Gynecology, 7th edn. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, 1992; 603–46.
45 ChoeKJ, BaggishSM.Hysteroscopic treatment of septate uterus with neodymium-YAG laser. Fertil Steril 1992; 57: 81–4.
46. AbuzeidM, SakhelK, ImamM, MitwallyMF, AshrafM, DiamondMP.Reproductive outcome after hysteroscopic metroplasty in women with primary infertility. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2008; 15: 80S.
47. LinBL, IwataY, MiyamotoN, et al. Three contrast methods: an ultrasound technique for monitoring transcervical operations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1987; 56: 469–72.
48. MencagliaL, TantiniC.Hysteroscopic treatment of septate and arcuate uterus. Gynaecol Endosc 1996; 5: 151–4.
49. NisolleM, DonnezJ.Endoscopic treatment of uterine malformations. Gynaecol Endosc 1996; 5: 155–60.
50. FedeleL, BianchiS, MarchiniM, et al. Residual uterine septum of less than 1cm after hysteroscopic metroplasty does not impair reproductive outcome. Hum Reprod 1996; 11: 727–9.
51. KormanyosZ, MolnarBG, PalA.Removal of a residual portion of a uterine septum in women of advanced reproductive age: obstetric outcome. Hum Reprod 2006; 4: 1047–51.
52. GrimbizisG, CamusM, ClasenK, et al. Hysteroscopic septum resection in patients with recurrent abortions or infertility. Hum Reprod 1998 13: 1188–93.
53. DalyDC, MaierD, Soto-AlbersC.Hysteroscopic metroplasty: six years’ experience. Obstet Gynecol 1989; 73: 201–5.
54. FedeleL, ArcainiL, ParazziniF, et al. Reproductive prognosis after hysteroscopic metroplasty in 102 women: lifetable analysis. Fertil Steril 1993; 59: 768–72.
55. JacobsenIJ, DeCherneyA. Results of conventional and hysteroscopic surgery. Hum Reprod 1997; 12: 1376–81.
56. PreutthipanS, LinasmitaV. Reproductive outcome following hysteroscopic treatment of the septate uterus: a result of 28 cases at Ramathibodi Hospital. J Med Assoc Thai 2001; 84: 166–70.
57. SentilhesL, SergentF, RomanH, et al. Late complications of operative hysteroscopy: predicting patients at risk of uterine rupture during subsequent pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2005; 120: 134–8.
58. NisolleL, DonnezJ. Endoscopic treatment of uterine malformations. Gyaecol Endosc 1996; 5; 155–60.

References

1. National Institute for Clinical Excellence. Assessment and Treatment for People with Fertility Problems. London: RCOG Press, 2004.
2. JenkinsJM, AnthonyFW, WoodP, RushenD, MassonGM, ThomasE.The development of functional ovarian cysts during pituitary down-regulation. Hum Reprod 1993; 8(10): 1623–7.
3. KupferMC, RallsPW, FuYS.Transvaginal sonographic evaluation of multiple peripherally distributed echogenic foci of the ovary: prevalence and histologic correlation. Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171(2): 483–6.
4. NardoLG, KroonND, ReginaldPW.Persistent unilocular ovarian cysts in a general population of postmenopausal women: is there a place for expectant management?Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102(3): 589–93.
5. KurjakA, KupesicS.Ultrasonic assessment of ovarian endometriosis. In: KupesicS, KurjakA, de ZieglerD, eds. Ultrasound and Infertility. London: Informa Health Care, 1999.
6. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The Investigation and Management of Endometriosis. Green-top Guideline No. 24. RCOG, London, 2006 [www.rcog.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=517].
7. TsoumpouI, KyrgiouM, GelbayaTA, NardoLG.The effect of surgical treatment for endometrioma on in vitro fertilization outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2009; 92(1): 75–87.
8. JermyK, LuiseC, BourneT.The characterization of common ovarian cysts in premenopausal women. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001; 17(2): 140–4
9. SerafiniG, QuadriPG, GandolfoNG, GandolfoN, MartinoliC, DerchiLE.Sonographic features of incidentally detected, small, nonpalpable ovarian dermoids. J Clin Ultrasound 1999; 27(7): 369–73.
10. Van HolsbekeC, DomaliE, HollandTK, et al. Imaging of gynecological disease (3): clinical and ultrasound characteristics of granulosa cell tumors of the ovary. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31(4): 450–6.
11. TinelliFG, TinelliR, La GrottaF, TinelliA, CicinelliE, SchonauerMM.Pregnancy outcome and recurrence after conservative laparoscopic surgery for borderline ovarian tumors. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2007 86(1): 81–7.
12. BoranN, CilAP, TulunayG, et al. Fertility and recurrence results of conservative surgery for borderline ovarian tumors. Gynecol Oncol 2005; 97(3): 845–51.
13. PalombaS, ZupiE, RussoT, et al. Comparison of two fertility-sparing approaches for bilateral borderline ovarian tumours: a randomized controlled study. Hum Reprod 2007; 22(2): 578–85.
14. SiassakosD, SyedA, WardleP.Tubal disease and assisted reproduction. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 10: 80–7.
15. SowterMC, AkandeVA, WilliamsJA, HullMG.Is the outcome of in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer treatment improved by spontaneous or surgical drainage of a hydrosalpinx?Hum Reprod 1997; 12(10): 2147–50.
16. GelbayaTA, KyrgiouM, TsoumpouI, NardoLG.The use of estradiol for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2008; 90(6): 2116–25.
17. BenacerrafBR, ShippTD, BromleyB.Improving the efficiency of gynecologic sonography with 3-dimensional volumes: a pilot study. J Ultrasound Med 2006; 25(2): 165–71.
18. HagelJ, BicknellSG.Impact of 3D sonography on workroom time efficiency. Am J Roentgenol 2007; 188(4): 966–9.

References

1. NashanD, BehreHM, GrunertJH, NieschlagE.Diagnostic value of scrotal sonography in infertile men: report on 658 cases. Andrologia 1990; 22: 387–95.
2. BehreHM, KlieschS, SchädelF, NieschlagE.Clinical relevance of scrotal and transrectal ultrasonography in andrological patients. Int J Androl 1995; 18(Suppl 2): 27–31.
3. PierikFH, DohleGR, van MuiswinkelJM, VreeburgJT, WeberRF.Is routine scrotal ultrasound advantageous in infertile men?J Urol 1999; 162: 1618–20
4. SakamotoH, SaitoK, ShichizyoT, IshikawaK, IgarashiA, YoshidaH.Color Doppler ultrasonography as a routine clinical examination in male infertility. Int J Urol 2006; 13: 1073–8.
5. HricakH, FillyRA.Sonography of the scrotum. Invest Radiol 1983; 18: 112–21.
6. SakamotoH, SaitoK, OgawaY, YoshidaH.Testicular volume measurements using Prader orchidometer versus ultrasonography in patients with infertility. Urology 2007; 69: 158–62.
7. SakamotoH, YajimaT, NagataM, OkumuraT, SuzukiK, OgawaY.Relationship between testicular size by ultrasonography and testicular function: measurement of testicular length, width, and depth in patients with infertility. Int J Urol 2008; 15: 529–33.
8. TammelaTL, KarttunenTJ, MattilaSI, MakarainenHP, HellstromPA, KontturiMJ.Cysts of the tunica albuginea – more common testicular masses than previously thought?Br J Urol 1991; 68: 280–4
9. RouvièreO, BouvierR, PangaudC, JeuneC, DawahraM, LyonnetD.Tubular ectasia of the rete testis: a potential pitfall in scrotal imaging. Eur Radiol 1999; 9: 1862–8.
10. OyenRH.Scrotal ultrasound scan. Eur Radiol 2002, 12: 19–34.
11. JanzenDL, MathiesonJR, MarshJI, et al. Testicular microlithiasis: sonographic and clinical features. Am J Roentgenol 1992; 158: 1057–60.
12. CostabileRA.How worrisome is testicular microlithiasis?Curr Opin Urol. 2007; 17: 419–23.
13. BackusML, MackLA, MiddletonWD, KingBF, WinterTC 3rd, TrueLD. Testicular microlithiasis: imaging appearances and pathologic correlation. Radiology 1994; 192: 781–5.
14. LaviopierreAM.Ultrasound of the prostate and testicles. World J Surg. 2000; 24, 198–207.
15. JaganathanK, AhmedS, HendersonA, RanéA.Current management strategies for testicular microlithiasis. Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2007; 4: 492–7.
16. KordeLA, PremkumarA, MuellerC, et al. Increased prevalence of testicular microlithiasis in men with familial testicular cancer and their relatives. Br J Cancer 2008; 99: 1748–53.
17. NguyenHT, CoakleyF, HricakH.Cryptorchidism: strategies in detection. Eur Radiol 1999, 9: 336–43
18. DavisRS.Intratesticular spermatocele. Urology 1998; 51(Suppl): 167–9.
19. SistaAK, FillyRA.Color Doppler sonography in evaluation of spermatoceles: the “falling snow” sign. J Ultrasound Med 2008; 27: 141–3.
20. MoonMH, KimSH, ChoJY, SeoJT, ChunYK.Scrotal US for evaluation of infertile men with azoospermia. Radiology 2006; 239: 168–73.
21. JequierAM, AnsellID, BullimoreNJ.Congenital absence of the vasa deferentia presenting with infertility. J Androl 1985; 6: 15–19.
22. BrownDL, BensonCB, DohertyFJ, et al. Cystic testicular mass caused by dilated rete testis: sonographic findings in 31 cases. Am J Roentgenol 1992; 158(6): 1257–9
23. DubinL, AmelarRD.Varicocele size and results of varicocelectomy in selected subfertile men with varicocele. Fertil Steril 1970; 21: 606–9.
24. ChiouRK, AndersonJC, WobigRK, et al. Color Doppler ultrasound criteria to diagnose varicoceles: correlation of a new scoring system with physical examination. Urology 1997; 50: 953–6.
25. CinaA, MinnettiM, PirrontiT, et al. Sonographic quantitative evaluation of scrotal veins in healthy subjects: normative values and implications for the diagnosis of varicocele. Eur Urol 2006; 50: 345–50.
26. CvitanicOA, CronanJJ, SigmanM, LandauST.Varicoceles: postoperative prevalence–a prospective study with color Doppler US. Radiology 1993; 187(3): 711–14.
27. TrumJW, GublerFM, LaanR, van der VeenF.The value of palpation, varicoscreen contact thermography and color Doppler ultrasound in the diagnosis of varicocele. Hum Reprod 1996; 11: 1232–5.
28. PetrosJA, AndrioleGL, MiddletonWD, PicusDA.Correlation of testicular color Doppler ultrasonography, physical examination and venography in the detection of left varicoceles in men with infertility. J Urol 1991; 145(4): 785–8.
29. LeeJ, BinsalehS, LoK, JarviK.Varicoceles: the diagnostic dilemma. J Androl 2006; 29: 143–6.
30. CornudF, BelinX, AmarE, DelafontaineD, HelenonO, MoreauJF.Varicocele: strategies in diagnosis and treatment. Eur Radiol 1999; 9: 536–45.
31. MeachamRB, TownsendRR, RademacherD, DroseJA..The incidence of varicoceles in the general population when evaluated by physical examination, gray scale sonography, and color Doppler sonography. J Urol 1994; 151: 1535–8.
32. KocakocE, KirisA, OrhanI, BozgeyikZ, KanbayM, OgurE. Incidence and importance of reflux in testicular veins of healthy men evaluated with color duplex sonography. J Clin Ultrasound 2002; 30: 282–7.
33. BelenkyA, AvrechOM, BacharGN, et al. Ultrasound-guided testicular sperm aspiration in azoospermic patients: a new sperm retrieval method for intracytoplasmic sperm injection. J Clin Ultrasound 2001; 29: 339–43.

References

1. ZahalskyM, NaglerH. Ultrasound and infertility: diagnostic and therapeutic uses. Curr Urol Rep 2001; 2: 437–42.
2. CerrutoMA, NovellaG, AntoniolliSZ, ZattoniF. Use of transperineal fine needle aspiration of seminal vesicles to retrieve sperm in a man with obstructive azoospermia. Fertil Steril 2006; 86: 1764. e7–9.
3. IrvinDS. Epidemiology and etiology of male infertility. Hum Reprod 1998; 13(Suppl 1): 33–44.
4. DohleGR, ColpiGM, HargreaveTB, PappGK, JungwirthA, WeidnerW. The EAU Working Group on Male Infertility. EAU guidelines on male infertility. Eur Urol 2005; 48: 703–11.
5. GoluboffET, StifelmanMD, FischH. Ejaculatory duct obstruction in the infertile male. Urology 1995; 45: 925–31.
6. ColpiGM, CasellaF, ZanolloA, et al. Functional voiding disturbances of the ampullo-vesicular seminal tract: a cause of male infertility. Acta Eur Fertil 1987; 18: 165–79.
7. PierikFH, VreeburgJT, StijnenT, De JongFH, WeberRF. Serum inhibin B as a marker of spermatogenesis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1998; 83: 3110–14.
8. PartinAW, RodriquezR. The molecular biology, endocrinology, and physiology of the prostate and seminal vesicles. In: WalshPC et al. Campbell’s Urology, 8th edn. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2002; 1238–84.
9. KatoH, HayamaM, FuruyaS, KobayashiS, IslamAM, NishizawaO. Anatomical and histological studies of so-called Mullerian duct cyst. Int J Urol 2005; 12: 465–8.
10. WeintraubMP, De MouyE, HellstromWJ G. Newer modalities in the diagnosis and treatment of ejaculatory duct obstruction. J Urol 1993; 150: 1150–4.
11. PurohitRS, WuDS, ShinoharaK, TurekPJ. A prospective comparison of 3 diagnostic methods to evaluate ejaculatory duct obstruction. J Urol 2004; 171: 232–5.
12. SchlegelPN, ShinD, GoldsteinM. Urogenital anomalies in men with congenital absence of the vas deferens. J Urol 1996; 155: 1644–8.
13. ChillonM, CasalsT, MercierB, et al. Mutations in the cystic fibrosis gene in patients with congenital absence of the vas deferens. N Engl J Med 1995; 332: 1475–80.
14. ShabsighR, LernerS, FishmanIJ, KadmonD. The role of transrectal ultrasonography in the diagnosis and management of prostatic and seminal vesicle cysts. J Urol 1989; 141: 1206–9.
15. ElderJS, MostwinJL. Cyst of the ejaculatory duct/urogenital sinus. J Urol 1984; 132: 768–71.
16. KuligowskaE, FenlonHM. Transrectal US in male infertility: spectrum of findings and role in patient care. Radiology 1998; 207: 173–81.
17. SilberSJ. Ejaculatory duct obstruction. J Urol 1980; 124: 294–7.
18. PattersonL, JarowJP. Transrectal ultrasonography in the evaluation of the infertile man: a report of three cases. J Urol 1990; 144: 1469–71.
19. NguyenHT, EtzellJ, TurekPJ. Normal human ejaculatory duct anatomy: a study of cadaveric and surgical specimens. J Urol 1996; 155: 1639–42.
20. OrhanI, OnurR, CayanS, KoksalIT, KadiogluA. Seminal vesicle sperm aspiration in the diagnosis of ejaculatory duct obstruction. BJU Int 1999; 84: 1050–3.
21. FischH, KangYM, JohnsonCW, GoluboffET. Ejaculatory duct obstruction. Curr Opin Urol 2002; 12: 509–15.
22. Schroeder-PrintzenI, LudwigM, KohnF, WeidnerW. Surgical therapy in infertile men with ejaculatory duct obstruction: technique and outcome of a standardized surgical approach. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 1364–8.
23. HalpernEJ, HirschIH. Sonographically guided transurethral laser incision of a Mullerian duct cyst for treatment of ejaculatory duct obstruction. Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175: 777–8.
24. ApaydinE, KilliRM, TurnaB, SemerciB, NazliO. Transrectal ultrasonography-guided echo-enhanced seminal vesiculography in combination with transurethral resection of the ejaculatory ducts. BJU Int 2004; 93: 1110–12.
25. BoehlemD, SchmidHP. Novel use of fine needle aspiration of seminal vesicles for sperm retrieval in infertile men. Urology 2005; 66: 880.

References

1. ChiangG, LevineD. Imaging of adnexal masses in pregnancy. J Ultrasound Med 2004; 23: 805–19.
2. PatelMD, FeldsteinVA, FillyRA. The likelihood ratio of sonographic findings for the diagnosis of hemorrhagic ovarian cysts. J Ultrasound Med 2005; 24: 607–15.
3. OzkanS, MurkW, AriciA. Endometriosis and infertility: epidemiology and evidence-based treatments. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008; 1127: 92–100.
4. KurjakA, KupesicS. Scoring system for prediction of ovarian endometriosis based on transvaginal color and pulsed Doppler sonography. Fertil Steril 1994; 62: 81–8.
5. GolanA, Ron-ElR, HermanA, et al. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: an update review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1989; 44: 430–40.
6. ShadingerLL, AndreottiRF, KurianRL. Preoperative sonographic and clinical characteristics as predictors of ovarian torsion. J Ultrasound Med. 2008 Jan; 27(1): 7–13.
7. FleischerAC, SteinSM, CullinanJA, et al: Color Doppler sonography of adnexal torsion. J Ultrasound Med 1995; 14: 523–8.
8. KatzVL, DottersDJ, DroegemeullerW. Complications of uterine leiomyomas in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1989; 73: 593–6.
9. HorrowMM. Ultrasound of pelvic inflammatory disease. Ultrasound Q 2004; 20: 171–9.
10. WorrellJA, DrolshagenLF, KellyTC, HuntonDW, DurmonGR, FleischerAC, Graded compression ultrasound in the diagnosis of appendicitis. A comparison of diagnostic criteria. J Ultrasound Med 1990; 9(3): 145–50.
11. ChiangG, LevineD, SwireM, et al: The intradecidual sign: is it reliable for diagnosis of early intrauterine pregnancy?. Am J Roentgenol 2004; 183: 725–31.
12. BradleyWG, FiskeCE, FillyRA. The double sac sign of early intrauterine pregnancy: use in exclusion of ectopic pregnancy. Radiology 1982; 143: 223–6.
13. LeviCS, LyonsEA, ZhengXH, et al. Endovaginal US: demonstration of cardiac activity in embryos of less than 5.0mm in crown-rump length. 1990; Radiology 176: 71–4.
14. GagoLA, TorresM, DiamondMP, PuscheckEE. Prognosis of subchorionic hemorrhage in early pregnancy. Fertil Steril 2005 Sep; 84(Suppl 1): S115.
15. NagyS, BushM, StoneJ, et al: Clinical significance of subchorionic and retroplacental hematomas detected in the first trimester of pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102: 94–100.
16. FarrSL, SchieveLA, JamiesonDJ. Pregnancy loss among pregnancies conceived through assisted reproductive technology, United States, 1999–2002. Am J Epidemiol. 2007; 165(12): 1380–8.
17. SimpsonJ, CarsonS. Genetic and non-genetic casues of spontaneous abortions. In: SciarraJ, ed. Gynecology and Obstetrics. Philadelphia, PA: JB Lippincott, 1995; 20.
18. FillyRA. Ultrasound evaluation during the first trimester. In: CallenPW, ed. Ultrasonography in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders, 1998; 63–85.
19. McKennaKM, FeldsteinVA, GoldsteinRB, et al. The empty amnion: a sign of early pregnancy failure. J Ultrasound Med 1995; 14: 117–21.
20. BrackenMB, BrintonLA, HayashiK. Epidemiology of hydatidiform mole and choriocarcinoma. Epidemiol Rev 1984; 6: 52–75.
21. LazarusE, HulkaC, SiewertB, et al: Sonographic appearance of early complete molar pregnancies. J Ultrasound Med 1999; 18: 589–94.
22. BerghT, LundkvistÖ. Clinical complications during in-vitro fertilization treatment. Hum Reprod 1992; 7: 625–6.
23. NybergDA, HughesMP, MackLA, et al. Extrauterine findings of ectopic pregnancy of transvaginal US: importance of echogenic fluid. Radiology 1991; 178: 823–6.
24. KlemettiR, SevónT, GisslerM, HemminkiE. Complications of IVF and ovulation induction. Hum Reprod 2005 Dec; 20(12): 3293–300.
25. From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Ectopic pregnancy–United States, 1990–1992. JAMA 1995; 273: 533.
26. PisarskaMD, CarsonSA, BusterJE. Ectopic pregnancy. Lancet 1998; 351(9109): 1115–20.
27. BatzerR. Guidelines for choosing a pregnancy test. Contemp Ob Gyn 1985; 30: 57.
28. CacciatoreB, Ulf-hakanS, YlostaloP. Diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy by vaginal ultrasonography in combination with a discriminatory serum hCG level of 1000 IU/l (IRP). Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990; 97: 904–8.
29. BarnhartK, MennutiMT, BenjaminI, et al. Prompt diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy in an emergency department setting. Obstet Gynecol 1994; 84: 1010–15.
30. DialaniV, LevineD. Ectopic pregnancy: a review. Ultrasound Q 2004; 20: 105–17.
31. AckermanTE, LeviCS, DashefskySM, et al. Interstitial line: sonographic finding in interstitial (cornual) ectopic pregnancy. Radiology 1993; 189: 83–7.
32. YehHC. Some misconceptions and pitfalls in ultrasonography. Ultrasound Q 2001; 17: 129–55.
33. NybergDA, MackLA, JeffreyRB Jr, et al. Endovaginal sonographic evaluation of ectopic pregnancy: a prospective study. Am J Roentgenol 1987; 149: 1181–6.
34. RussellSA, FillyRA, DamatoN. Sonographic diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy with endovaginal probes: what really has changed?. J Ultrasound Med 1993; 12: 145–51.
35. AtriM, de StempelJ, BretPM. Accuracy of transvaginal ultrasonography for detection of hematosalpinx in ectopic pregnancy. J Clin Ultrasound 1992; 20: 255–61.
36. FratesMC, VisweswaranA, LaingFC. Comparison of tubal ring and corpus luteum echogenicities: a useful differentiating characteristic. J Ultrasound Med 2001; 20: 27–31.
37. EmersonDS, CartierMS, AltieriLA, et al. Diagnostic efficacy of endovaginal color Doppler flow imaging in an ectopic pregnancy screening program. Radiology 1992; 183: 413–20.
38. LevineD.Ectopic pregnancy. In: CallenPW, ed. Ultrasonography in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders, 2000: 912–34.
39. TaylorKJ, MeyerWR. New techniques in the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1991; 18: 39–54.
40. LeeGS, HurSY, KownI, et al. Diagnosis of early intramural ectopic pregnancy. J Clin Ultrasound 2005; 33: 190–2.
41. FernandezH, BeniflaJL, LelaidierC, et al. Methotrexate treatment of ectopic pregnancy: 100 cases treated by primary transvaginal injection under sonographic control. Fertil Steril 1993; 59: 773–7.
42. DoubiletPM, BensonCB, FratesMC, et al. Sonographically guided minimally invasive treatment of unusual ectopic pregnancies. J Ultrasound Med 2004; 23: 359–70.
43. CelikC, BalaA, AcarA, et al. Methotrexate for cervical pregnancy. A case report. J Reprod Med 2003; 48: 130–2.
44. FratesMC, BensonCB, DoubiletPM, et al. Cervical ectopic pregnancy: results of conservative treatment. Radiology 1994; 191: 773–5.
45. JurkovicD, HillabyK, WoelferB, et al. First-trimester diagnosis and management of pregnancies implanted into the lower uterine segment Cesarean section scar. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003; 21: 220–7.
46. SeowKM, HuangLW, LinYH, et al. Cesarean scar pregnancy: issues in management. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 23: 247–53.
47. Haimov-KochmanR, Sciaky-TamirY, YanaiN, et al. Conservative management of two ectopic pregnancies implanted in previous uterine scars. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 19: 616–19.
48. AtriM, BretPM, TulandiT, SentermanMK. Ectopic pregnancy: evolution after treatment with transvaginal methotrexate. Radiology 1992; 185: 749–53.
49. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin. Medical management of tubal pregnancy. Number 3, December 1998. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1999; 65(1): 97–103.

References

1. ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins – Gynecology. Chronic Pelvic Pain: No. 51, March 2004. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103(3): 589–605.
2. MathiasSD, KuppermannM, LebermanRF, LipschutzRC, SteegeJF. Chronic pelvic pain: prevalence, health-related quality of life, and economic correlates. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 87: 321–7.
3. ZondervanKT, YudkinPL, VesseyMP, et al. The community prevalence of chronic pelvic pain in women and associated illness behaviour: Br J Gen Pract 2001; 51: 541–7.
4. DaviesL, GangarKF, DrummondM, SoundersD, BeardRW. The economic burden of intractable gynaecological pain. J Obstet Gynaecol 1992; 12: S54–6.
5. BreivikH, CollettB, VentafriddaV, CohenR, GallacherD. Survey of chronic pain in Europe: prevalence, impact on daily life and treatment. Eur J Pain 2006; 10: 177–83.
6. StonesW, CheongYC, HowardFM. Interventions for treating chronic pelvic pain in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005; (2): CD000387.
7. OkaroE, CondousG, KhalidA, et al. The use of ultrasound based ‘soft markers’ for the prediction of pelvic pathology in women with chronic pelvic pain-can we reduce the need for laparoscopy?BJOG 2006; 113: 251–6.
8. KangSB, ChungHH, LeeHP, LeeJY, ChangYS. Impact of diagnostic laparoscopy on the management of chronic pelvic pain. Surg Endosc 2007; 21: 916–19.
9. OkaroE, ValentinL.The role of ultrasound in the management of women with acute and chronic pelvic pain. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynecol 2004; 18(1): 105–23.
10. MaisV, GuerieroS, AfossaS, AngiolucciM, PaolettiAM, MelisGB, The efficiency of transvaginal ultrsonography in the diagnosis of endometriomas: Fertil Steril 1993; 60(5): 776–80.
11. GuerrieroS, MaisV, AjossaS, et al. The role of endovaginal ultrasound in differentiating endometriomas from other ovarian cysts. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 1995; 22(1): 20–2.
12. FedeleL, BianchiS, PortueseA, BorrutoF, DortaM.Transrectal ultrasonography in the assessment of rectovaginal endometriosis. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 91(3): 444–8.
13. BazotM, MalzyP, CortezA, RoseauG, AmouyalP, DaraiE. Accuracy of transvaginal sonography and rectal endoscopic sonography in the diagnosis of deep infiltrating endometriosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 30: 994–1001.
14. KoninckxPR, MartinD. Treatment of deeply infiltrating endometriosis. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 1994; 6: 231–41.
15. KepkepK, TuncayYA, GoynumerG, TutalE. Transvaginal sonography in the diagnosis of adenomyosis: which findings are more accurate?. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 30: 341–5.
16. TeissalaK, HeinononPK, PunnonenR. Transvaginal ultrasound in the diagnosis and treatment of tuboovarian abcess. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990; 97(2): 178–80.
17. Bajo ArenasJM, Perez-MedinaT, TroyanoJ. Sonography of pelvic infection. Ultrasound Rev Obstetr Gynecol 2005; 5(1): 81–90.
18. Timor-TritschIE, RottemS, LewitN. The fallopian tubes. In: Timor-Tritsch, IE, RottemS, eds. Transvaginal Sonography, 2nd ed. New York: Elsevier, 1991; 131–4.
19. TeissalaK, HeinononPK, PunnonenR. Transvaginal ultrasound in the diagnosis and treatment of tuboovarian abcess. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990; 97(2): 178–80.
20. GhiatasAA. The spectrum of pelvic inflammatory disease. Eur Radiol Suppl 2004; 14(Suppl 3): E184–92.
21. GaneshanA, UpponiS, HonLQ, UthappaMC, WarakaulleDR, UberoiR. Chronic pelvic pain due to pelvic congestion syndrome: the role of diagnostic and Interventional radiology. Cardiovascular Intervent Radiol 2007; 30: 1105–11.