American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 1993
Transvaginal ultrasonography and the assessment of luteal phase endometrium.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Doherty C M, Silver B, Binor Z, Molo M W, Radwanska E
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to determine if ultrasonography of the endometrium could be used to identify in a noninvasive manner patients with luteal phase defects.
STUDY DESIGN: Patients underwent midluteal transvaginal ultrasonography with photographing of the endometrial image, an endometrial biopsy, and two serum hormonal profiles. The ultrasonographic images were graded and compared with the histologic results and the serum hormonal profiles.
RESULTS: There was a trend toward a higher grade image being associated with normal histologic studies. There was no significant difference between the mean hormonal profiles in patients with normal and those with abnormal biopsy specimens. There was no significant difference between the hormonal values drawn before and those drawn after the biopsies.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the endometrial appearance on ultrasonography appears to reflect secretory transformation, it cannot replace endometrial biopsy for full evaluation of luteal endometrial development. Short-term variability in serum concentrations of midluteal hormones was not demonstrated.
STUDY DESIGN: Patients underwent midluteal transvaginal ultrasonography with photographing of the endometrial image, an endometrial biopsy, and two serum hormonal profiles. The ultrasonographic images were graded and compared with the histologic results and the serum hormonal profiles.
RESULTS: There was a trend toward a higher grade image being associated with normal histologic studies. There was no significant difference between the mean hormonal profiles in patients with normal and those with abnormal biopsy specimens. There was no significant difference between the hormonal values drawn before and those drawn after the biopsies.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the endometrial appearance on ultrasonography appears to reflect secretory transformation, it cannot replace endometrial biopsy for full evaluation of luteal endometrial development. Short-term variability in serum concentrations of midluteal hormones was not demonstrated.