Skip to main content
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics logoLink to Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics
. 2002 Jan;19(1):39–41. doi: 10.1023/A:1014062723606

A Prospective Novel Method of Determining Ovarian Size during in vitro Fertilization Cycles

John L Frattarelli 1, Andrew J Levi 2, Bradley T Miller 3
PMCID: PMC3455667  PMID: 11893014

Abstract

Purpose: Recently ovarian volume has been touted as a means to evaluate ovarian reserve in assisted reproductive technology cycles. In this study, a novel method of determining ovarian size was evaluated and compared to the standard three-dimensional ovarian volume measurement during in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Methods: This prospective observational study consisted of 60 consecutive patients undergoing baseline transvaginal ultrasonography for IVF from July to August, 1999. The main outcome measures were mean ovarian size and mean ovarian volume.

Results: The patients' ages ranged from 23 to 43 years with a mean age of 33.86 ± 4.5 years. The mean ovarian size was 2.19 ± 0.4 cm (range 1.40–3.40). The mean ovarian volume was 5.02 ± 2.7 cm3 (range 1.71–16.5 cm3). By linear regression there was a 90% correlation between the two methods of ovarian measurement (r = 0.90, p < 0.01).

Conclusions: These results demonstrated a strong correlation between these two methods of determining ovarian size. Mean ovarian diameter measured in the largest sagittal plane is a good estimation of ovarian volume and may be used to quickly assess ovarian status prior to undergoing IVF.

Keywords: In vitro fertilization, ovarian reserve, ovarian size, ovarian volume, transvaginal ultrasound

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (48.2 KB).

REFERENCES

  • 1.Padilla SL, Garcia JE. Effect of maternal age and number of in vitro fertilization procedures on pregnancy outcome. Fertil Steril. 1989;52:270–273. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)60854-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Scott RT, Hofmann GE. Prognostic assessment of ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril. 1995;63:1–11. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Syrop CH, Willhoite A, Van Voorhis BJ. Ovarian volume: A novel outcome predictor for assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril. 1995;64:1167–1171. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)57979-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Lass A, Skull J, McVeigh E, Margara R, Winston RM. Measurement of ovarian volume by transvaginal sonography before ovulation induction with human menopausal gonadotrophin for in vitro fertilization can predict poor response. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:294–297. doi: 10.1093/humrep/12.2.294. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Higgins RV, Van Nagell JR, Woods CH, Thompson EA, Kryscio RJ. Interobserver variation in ovarian measurements using transvaginal sonography. Gynecol Oncol. 1990;39:69–71. doi: 10.1016/0090-8258(90)90401-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Frattarelli JL, Lauria-Costa DF, Miller BT, Bergh PA, Scott RT. Basal antral follicle number and mean ovarian diameter predict cycle cancellation and ovarian responsiveness in assisted reproductive technology cycles. Fertil Steril. 2000;74:512–517. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(00)00708-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics are provided here courtesy of Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

RESOURCES