A Comparative Study on Quantitative Assessment of Blood Flow and Vascularization in Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Patients and Normal Women Using Three-Dimensional Power Doppler Ultrasonography
Purpose of the Study
To compare the quantitative assessment of blood flow and vascularization of ovaries in polycystic ovary syndrome patients and normal women using three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasonography.
This cross-sectional quantitative study was conducted on women of reproductive age group (15–45 years) attending Gynaecology OPD AIMSR, Bathinda, Punjab. Thirty women were enrolled in polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) group and 30 healthy women in control group. Women were categorized as polycystic ovary syndrome according to Rotterdam’s criteria. The women with PCOS underwent transvaginal USG Doppler on day 6 of the cycle using 3D power Doppler USG equipment (GE Voluson E8), and vascularization index (VI), flow index (FI) and vascularization flow index (VFI) were measured.
The mean values of VI, FI and VFI measured by power Doppler ultrasonography were significantly increased (P value = 0.000) in women with PCOS when compared with healthy women.
This study suggests that blood flow and vascularization measured by 3D power Doppler ultrasonography in ovaries of polycystic ovary syndrome patients were significantly more than the ovaries of normal women.
KeywordsPolycystic ovary syndrome Three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasonography Vascularization index (VI) Flow index (FI) Vascularization flow index (VFI)
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declared that there was no conflict of interest.
Research protocol was approved by the institutional ethics committee.
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects for being included in the study.
- 3.Al-Rab MT, Mohammed AB, Mo’men MH, et al. Three-dimensional power Doppler indices of ovarian stromal blood flow and serum vascular endothelial growth factor after laparoscopic ovarian drilling in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Middle East Fertil Soc J. 2015;20(3):138–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar