Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Can ultrasound elastography be useful in the diagnosis of poor ovarian response?
Gulec, Ebru Sahin; Gur, Esra Bahar; Kurtulmus, Secil Karaca; Kaygun, Bilgesu Cetinel; Kasap, Esin; Demir, Ahmet.
Afiliación
  • Gulec ES; Clinic of In vitro fertilization, Health Sciences University Izmir Tepecik Education and Research Hospital, Konak, Turkey.
  • Gur EB; Faculty of Medicine, Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Izmir Katip Celebi University, Izmir, Turkey.
  • Kurtulmus SK; Faculty of Medicine, Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Izmir Katip Celebi University, Izmir, Turkey.
  • Kaygun BC; Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aydin Gynecology and Pediatrics Hospital, Aydin, Turkey.
  • Kasap E; Clinic of In vitro fertilization, Health Sciences University Izmir Tepecik Education and Research Hospital, Konak, Turkey.
  • Demir A; Clinic of In vitro fertilization, Health Sciences University Izmir Tepecik Education and Research Hospital, Konak, Turkey.
J Clin Ultrasound ; 2024 Sep 18.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39291662
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES:

This study aims to compare the elastographic properties of the ovaries of patients with poor ovarian response (POR) with healthy controls by using real-time ultrasound tissue elastography and to investigate the predictive value of ovarian strain ratio (OSR) in the diagnosis of POR. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

A cross-sectional study was conducted among infertility patients. OSR measurements of 46 women diagnosed with POR and 41 healthy controls with male infertility were performed by real-time ultrasound tissue elastography. Ovarian volume, OSR, antral follicle count (AFC), age, body mass index (BMI), anti-mullerian hormone (AMH), follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), and estradiol (E2) values, were compared between the groups. A receiver operating characteristic curve was used to compare the sensitivity and specificity of OSR, AFC, AMH, FSH, and E2 for POR diagnosis.

RESULTS:

Patients with POR were significantly older, had a lower duration of infertility, lower AMH, higher FSH, higher E2, lower AFC and ovarian volume (p < 0.01, p = 0.02, p < 0.01, p < 0.01, p < 0.01, p < 0.01, p < 0.01, respectively). The mean OSR of both ovaries was similar between the groups. For the diagnosis of POR, the sensitivity and specificity for AMH were 97.5% and 100%, for AFC were 86.7% and 97.6%; for FSH were 66.7% and 80.5%, for E2 were 53.3% and 90.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS:

The significant independent predictors of the POR were AMH, AFC, and FSH, with no additional significant contribution from OSR. However, considering the relationship between POR and ovarian fibrosis, it is recommended to investigate this issue in more comprehensive studies.
Palabras clave
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: J Clin Ultrasound Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Turquía Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: J Clin Ultrasound Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Turquía Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos