Ultrasonically guided oocyte collection gradually replaces laparoscope in many IVF center. In present study, we compare the efficacy of both methods in our IVF program. Totally 377 cycles which were undertaken in vitro fertilization treatment were divided into 2 groups. Ultrasonically guided transvaginal follicular aspiration was performed in 188 cycles and laparoscopic follicular aspiration was performed in 189 cycles under local anesthesisa. The mean age for both groups was similar. Follicular recruitment was achieved with human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) or a com bination of clomiphene citrate and hMG or a combination of FSH and hMG. In the ultrasonically guided aspiration group, 1821 follicles were aspirated with 61.8% of recovery rate (1125 oocytes), 81.5% of embryo transfer rate (145 cycles) and (17%), 26 cases intrauterine pregnancies were estabilished. In the laparoscopic group, 604 follicles were aspirated with 68.7% recovery rate (445 oocytes) and a 79.9% ET rate (127 cycles), 11 cases (8.7%) intrauterine pregnancies were estabilished. A valid comparison of these data is not possible because the 2 groups are dissimilar for factors known to influence oocyte development and recovery. No statistically significant differences could be demonstrated between 2 groups in all but the recovery rate and clinical pregnancy rate, In ultrasound group, the clinical pregnancy rate was significantly higher than that of laparoscope group. The potentially detrimental effect of CO2 pnemoperitonium present during laparoscope but not in ultrasound guided recovery on ova quality may underlie the observed difference in the clinical pregnancy rate between the 2 groups. Ultrasound guided aspiration seems to be as effective as laparoscopy in terms of oocyte retrieval and conception rate. Furthermore, the procedure is simple and inexpensive, it may replace laparoscopy as a method for oocyte collection in most patients who undergo IVF.