Abstract

Three-dimensional ultrasound (3D US) is a new imaging modality, which is being introduced into clinical practice. Although this technique will not probably replace two-dimensional ultrasound, it is being increasingly used. It has been reported that 3D US is a very high reproducible technique. The endometrium has been paid special attention when using this technique. The aim of this paper is to address some technical aspects of 3D US and to review critically its current status in evaluating endometrial function with special focus in its role in predicting pregnancy in assisted reproductive techniques. In spontaneous cycles endometrial volume grows during follicular phase remaining constant through the luteal phase. Endometrial vascularization increases during follicular phase peaking 2–3 days before ovulation, decreasing thereafter and increasing again during mid and late luteal phase. Data from studies analysing the role of 3D US for predicting IVF outcome are controversial. An explanation for these controversial findings might be different design of reported studies, specially the timing of ultrasound evaluation.

Highlights

  • IntroductionEndometrial assessment has been performed usually by endometrial biopsy [1]

  • Endometrial receptivity is a crucial fact in human reproduction

  • Several parameters have been proposed for assessing endometrial receptivity, including endometrial thickness, endometrial pattern and endometrial and subendometrial blood flow [2,3,4,5,6,7]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Endometrial assessment has been performed usually by endometrial biopsy [1] Such as invasive method is not acceptable when evaluating endometrial receptivity in order not to damage the endometrium. Endometrial receptivity should be ideally evaluated before implantation by a non-invasive method. Several parameters have been proposed for assessing endometrial receptivity, including endometrial thickness, endometrial pattern and endometrial and subendometrial blood flow [2,3,4,5,6,7]. These parameters may identify patients with low implantation potential. Their positive predictive value is low [8,9]

Objectives
Methods
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call