Is there any difference among the most frequently used laparoscopic ovarian drilling techniques?

Fertility and Sterility

Volumn 91, Issue 6, 2009, Pages

  Api, Murat ^a  

^a HASEKI EDUCATION AND RESEARCH HOSPITAL   (Turkey)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANDROGEN;

ANDROGEN RELEASE; ANOVULATION; CAUTERIZATION; COW; GYNECOLOGIC SURGERY; LAPAROSCOPIC OVARIAN DRILLING; LETTER; NONHUMAN; ORGAN INJURY; ORGAN SIZE; OVARY FOLLICLE; OVARY POLYCYSTIC DISEASE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SURGEON; TISSUE INJURY;

FEMALE; HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; OVARY; POLYCYSTIC OVARY SYNDROME;

EID: 67349196027     PISSN: 00150282     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.03.006     Document Type: Letter

References (3)

1. Hendriks M.L., van der Valk P., Lambalk C.B., Broeckaert M.A., Homburg R., and Hompes P.G. Extensive tissue damage of bovine ovaries after bipolar ovarian drilling compared to monopolar electrocoagulation or carbon dioxide laser. Fertil Steril (December 17, 2008)
2. Api M. Is ovarian reserve diminished after laparoscopic ovarian drilling?. Gynecol Endocrinol (2009) In press
3. Li T.C., Saravelos H., Chow M.S., Chisabingo R., and Cooke I.D. Factors affecting the outcome of laparoscopic ovarian drilling for polycystic ovarian syndrome in women with anovulatory infertility. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 105 (1998) 338-344