04596nam a2200361 a 450000100080000000500110000800800410001902400560006010000170011624501060013326000630023952036100030265000110391265000100392365000270393365000120396065000220397265000170399465000200401165000120403165300180404365300260406165300080408765300120409565300120410765300130411970000170413270000160414970000160416570000210418170000150420270000170421715257272025-07-23       1995    bl uuuu     u00u1 u    #d7 ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0093-691X(95)92377-L2DOI1 aGRAFF, K. J.  aUltrasound-guided transvaginal oocyte recovery from FSH-treated goats for IVF.h[electronic resource]  aTheriogenology, v. 43, n. 1, p. 223, 1995. Abstract.c1995  aAbstract: The objectives of this study were 1) to evaluate ovarian stimulation protocols on donor goats and 2) to develop a safe, repeatable method for collecting oocytes from FSH-treated does. This study was performed during the transitional period ending the breeding season (March) in the southern United States. In this study, 32 crossbred does, 16 that had not been previously aspirated and 16 that had undergone one previous aspiration procedure, were randomly subjected to ovarian stimulation protocols as follows: Treatment (TRT) (A) does were implanted with a norgestomet ear implant (sc), followed 7 d later with 25 mg (im) of PGF2 (Lutalyse(R)). Starting 10 d post-implantation, does were administered (im) FSH (FSH-P(R)) twice daily for 4 d (8,8; 6,6; 4,4 and 2,2 mg). On the evening of the last FSH injection, implants were removed. Does in TRT (B) were treated similarly to those in TRT (A), but were implanted for only 3 d before starting the FSH injections and implants were not removed prior to aspiration. Using a 2x2 factorial arrangement, fresh does (n = 16), not previously aspirated, were then further randomly assigned to either a laparoscopic aspiration procedure (LAP) or a transvaginal ultrasound-guided aspiration procedure (TUGA). Repeat-aspiration does (n = 16) were assigned to the same procedure to which they had previously been subjected. Aspirations were performed 36 h after the last FSH injection. The LAP procedure entailed introducing a fiber optic scope and two grasping instruments through the abdominal wall for visualization and immobilization of the ovaries. A Teflon intravascular catheter (14-g, 51 mm Quick-Cath(R)) was then inserted through the linea alba, either just anterior (or just posterior) to udder attachment. An 18-g, 15.2 mm spinal needle, attached to a 3.5 ml plastic syringe was introduced through the catheter to puncture and flush the follicles in each ovary. For the TUGA, the anesthetized doe was placed in dorsal recumbency, with the head elevated. Two fingers were inserted per rectum, with the free hand applying abdominal pressure to locate and stabilize the selected ovary. Once the ovary had been securely grasped rectally, a 5 MHz human transvaginal sector transducer (Model No. UST-945 BP-5), attached to an Aloka-500V ultrasound unit, was positioned vaginally for follicular aspiration. Aspiration was performed by second technician using a 17-g, single-lumen needle attached via Teflon micropore tubing (1.06 mm i.d.) to a 15 ml conical tube containing ~3 ml of modified PBS medium. The second technician introduced the needle into the follicle, while applying negative pressure with an electric suction pump. Laparoscopy was performed on all does before the aspiration procedure to verify follicle number. In summary, there was no significant difference among treatment groups for parameters evaluated, with the exception of methods for oocyte collection (Table). The number of follicles aspirated (6.3 vs 16.1) and oocytes harvested (4.3 vs 11.5) using TUGA were less than those obtained by LAP. This was due to decreased follicle visibility at collection using the TUGA. Despite the difference in oocytes recovered per doe between collection procedures, the percent oocyte recovery for does subjected to the TUGA (68%) was similar to females subjected to the LAP (71%). Unlike does subjected to a repeated LAP, there was no evidence of adhesions in donor does from the repeated TUGA group. The TUGA approach to oocyte collection should not be overlooked in an effort to decrease the chances of adhesions in valuable donor goats.  aDosage  aGoats  aIn vitro fertilization  aOocytes  aOvarian follicles  aReproduction  aUltrasonography  aCaprino  aDonor animals  aEspiração folicular  aFSH  aOócito  aOvaries  aUltrason1 aMEINTJES, M.1 aPAUL, J. B.1 aDYER, V. W.1 aDENNISTON, R. S.1 aZIOMEK, C.1 aGODKE, R. A.