Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The therapeutic effects of rFSH versus uFSH/uHMG on ovarian stimulation in women undergoing assisted reproductive technology: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

  • Maternal-Fetal Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the therapeutic effects of rFSH versus uFSH/uHMG on ovarian stimulation in women undergoing assisted reproductive technology.

Methods

The databases of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched to retrieve data on eligible trials from inception until July 2022. The relative risks (RRs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were applied to assess categorical and continuous outcomes, and the pooled results were calculated using the random-effects model. Sensitivity, subgroup, and publication bias analyses were also performed.

Results

Forty-eight trials that enrolled 10,127 women were included in this quantitative meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between rFSH and uFSH/uHMG in the clinical pregnancy rate (RR: 1.01; 95% CI 0.95–1.07; P = 0.760), live birth rate (RR: 0.98; 95% CI 0.91–1.06; P = 0.665), multiple pregnancy rate (RR: 0.92; 95% CI 0.77–1.09; P = 0.320), miscarriage rate (RR: 1.17; 95% CI 0.94–1.46; P = 0.151), and the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (RR: 1.25; 95% CI 0.91–1.70; P = 0.164). In addition, the administration of rFSH was associated with a higher number of oocyte retrieval compared with that of uFSH/uHMG (WMD: 0.61; 95% CI 0.03–1.20; P = 0.038), while no significant differences were found between rFSH and uFSH/uHMG in the dosage of gonadotrophin (WMD: 14.80; 95% CI − 136.97 to 166.57; P = 0.848) and the duration of ovarian stimulation (WMD: − 0.26; 95% CI − 0.62 to 0.10; P = 0.152). Thus, the exploratory analyses revealed several potential differences in the effects of rFSH versus uFSH/uHMG on ovarian stimulation.

Conclusion

The administration of rFSH significantly increased the number of oocytes retrieved, whereas there were no significant differences between the efficacies of rFSH and uFSH/uHMG for pregnancy outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Gameiro S, Boivin J, Dancet E et al (2015) ESHRE guideline: routine psychosocial care in infertility and medically assisted reproduction-a guide for fertility staff. Hum Reprod 30:2476–2485

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Tarlatzis B, Tavmergen E, Szamatowicz M et al (2006) The use of recombinant human LH (lutropin alfa) in the late stimulation phase of assisted reproduction cycles: a double-blind, randomized, prospective study. Hum Reprod 21:90–94

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Marrs R, Meldrum D, Muasher S et al (2004) Randomized trial to compare the effect of recombinant human FSH (follitropin alfa) with or without recombinant human LH in women undergoing assisted reproduction treatment. Reprod Biomed Online 8:175–182

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Humaidan P, Bungum M, Bungum L et al (2004) Effects of recombinant LH supplementation in women undergoing assisted reproduction with GnRH agonist down-regulation and stimulation with recombinant FSH: an opening study. Reprod Biomed Online 8:635–643

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bassett RM, Driebergen R (2005) Continued improvements in the quality and consistency of follitropin alfa, recombinant human FSH. Reprod Biomed Online 10:169–177

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Howles C (1996) Genetic engineering of human FSH (Gonal-F). Hum Reprod Update 2:172–191

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Daya S, Gunby J (1999) Recombinant versus urinary follicle stimulating hormone for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod 14:2207–2215

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Daya S (2002) Updated meta-analysis of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) versus urinary FSH for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril 77:711–714

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Daya S, Gunby J (2000) Recombinant versus urinary follicle stimulating hormone for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD002810

    Google Scholar 

  10. van Wely M, Kwan I, Burt AL et al (2011) Recombinant versus urinary gonadotrophin for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD005354

    Google Scholar 

  11. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). Cochrane Collaboration. 2011.

  13. DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:177–188

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ades AE, Lu G, Higgins JP (2005) The interpretation of random-effects metaanalysis in decision models. Med Decis Making 25:646–654

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG (2008) Analyzing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins J, Green S, eds.Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.0.1. Oxford, UK: The Cochrane Collaboration: chap 9.

  16. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ et al (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Tobias A (1999) Assessing the influence of a single study in meta-analysis. Stata Tech Bull 47:15–17

    Google Scholar 

  18. Altman DG, Bland JM (2003) Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates. BMJ 326:219

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M et al (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315:629–634

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Begg CB, Mazumdar M (1994) Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 50:1088–1101

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. O’Dea L, Loumaye E, Liu H (1993) A randomized, comparative, multicenter clinical trial of recombinant and urinary human FSH in in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVFET). The American Fertility Society and The Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society 1993 Annual Meeting, Program Supplement S50-S51, abstract O-106.

  22. Alvino H, Norman RJ, Matthews CD (1995) Recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone (Gonal-F,Serono) compared to urinary follicle stimulating hormone (Metrodin) in IVF cycles: a randomised control study. Fertility Society of Australia/Australasian Gynaecological endoscopy Society Conference, Melbourne, Australia. 19–25 November.

  23. Hedon B, Out HJ, Hugues JN et al (1995) Efficacy and safety of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (Puregon) in infertile women pituitary-suppressed with triptorelin undergoing in-vitro fertilization: a prospective, randomized, assessor-blind, multicentre trial. Hum Reprod 10:3102–3106

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Out HJ, Mannaerts BM, Driessen SG et al (1995) A prospective, randomized, assessor-blind, multicentre study comparing recombinant and urinary follicle stimulating hormone (Puregon versus Metrodin) in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 10:2534–2540

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Recombinant Human FSH Study Group (1995) Clinical assessment of recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone in stimulating ovarian follicular development before in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 63:77–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Bergh C, Howles CM, Borg K et al (1997) Recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone (r-hFSH; Gonal-F) versus highly purified urinary FSH (Metrodin HP): results of a randomized comparative study in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. Hum Reprod 12:2133–2139

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Jansen CA, van Os HC, Out HJ et al (1998) A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (Puregon) and human menopausal gonadotrophins (Humegon) in non-down-regulated in-vitro fertilization patients. Hum Reprod 13:2995–2999

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Berger E, Chabloz P, De Quay N et al (1999) An open, randomized, group-comparative bicentre study comparing recombinant FSH follitropinum beta 150 IU and highly purified urinary FSH 225 IU as a fixed dose regimen in IVF/ICSI treatment. Hum Reprod 14:61–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ferraretti AB, Gianaroli L, Magli C, Feliciani E, Gergolet M, Fortini D (1999) Recombinant FSH versus urinary FSH in nondown regulated poorly responding patients. ([abstract no P196]) In: Abstract book, 11th World Congress of In vitro Fertilization and Human Reproductive Genetics. Vol. 263, Monduzzi, Bologna, Italy

  30. Ghosh S, Chattopadhyay R, Goswami S, Chakravarty BN (1999) Recombinant FSH versus highly purified urinary FSH-our experience. ([abstract no P197]) In: Abstract book, 11th World Congress of In vitro Fertilization and Human Reproductive Genetics. Vol. 264, issue Monduzzi, Bologna, Italy

  31. Hoomans EH, Andersen AN, LoM A et al (1999) A prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing 150 IU recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (Puregon) and 225 IU highly purified urinary follicle stimulating hormone (Metrodin-HP) in a fixed-dose regimen in women undergoing ovarian stimulation. Hum Reprod 14:2442–2447

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kornilov NV, Shylkova SA, Loginova JA, Tomas C, Ashorn RG (1999) Comparison of four diKerent gonadotropins for ovarian stimulation in IVF treatment. In: 11th World Congress of In Vitro Fertilization and Human Reproductive Genetics. Monduzzi, Bologna, Italy, pp 379–383

  33. Raga F, Bonilla-Musoles F, Casan EM et al (1999) Recombinant follicle stimulating hormone stimulation in poor responders with normal basal concentrations of follicle stimulating hormone and oestradiol: improved reproductive outcome. Hum Reprod 14:1431–1434

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Raga F, Bonilla-Musoles F, Casañ EM et al (1999) Recombinant follicle stimulating hormone stimulation in poor responders with normal basal concentrations of follicle stimulating hormone and oestradiol: improved reproductive outcome. Hum Reprod 14:1431–1434

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Franco JG Jr, Baruffi RL, Coelho J et al (2000) A prospective and randomized study of ovarian stimulation for ICSI with recombinant FSH versus highly purified urinary FSH. Gynecol Endocrinol 14:5–10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Frydman R, Howles CM, Truong F, for the French Multicentre Trialists (2000) A double-blind, randomized study to compare recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone (FSH; Gonal-F) with highly purified urinary FSH (Metrodin) HP) in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques including intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 15:520–525

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Germond M, De Palma R, Senn A et al (2000) Recombinant versus highly purified urinary FSH to induce ovulation induction and pregnancies in women over 35 years in an IVF/ICSI programme. Hum Reprod 15:46

    Google Scholar 

  38. Lenton E, Soltan A, Hewitt J et al (2000) Induction of ovulation in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques: recombinant human FSH (follitropin alpha) versus highly purified urinary FSH (urofollitropin HP). Hum Reprod 15:1021–1027

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Nardo LG, Bellanca SA, Messina K et al (2000) Efficacy of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone versus urinary follicle stimulating hormone in in-vitro fertilization: a prospective, randomized, assessor-blind study. Ital J Gynaecol Obst 12:53

    Google Scholar 

  40. Schats R, Sutter PD, Bassil S et al (2000) Ovarian stimulation during assisted reproduction treatment: a comparison of recombinant and highly purified urinary human FSH. On behalf of the Feronia and Apis study group. Hum Reprod 15:1691–1697

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Hugues JN, Bry-Gauillard H, Bständig B et al (2001) Comparison of recombinant and urinary follicle-stimulating hormone preparations in short-term gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist protocol for in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. J Assist Reprod Genet 18:191–196

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Gordon UD, Harrison RF, Fawzy M et al (2001) randomized prospective assessor-blind evaluation of luteinizing hormone dosage and in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril 75:324–331

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Ng EH, Lau EY, Yeung WS et al (2001) HMG is as good as recombinant human FSH in terms of oocyte and embryo quality: a prospective randomized trial. Hum Reprod 16:319–325

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Strehler E, Abt M, El-Danasouri I et al (2001) Impact of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone and human menopausal gonadotropins on in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril 75:332–336

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Westergaard LG, Erb K, Laursen SB et al (2001) Human menopausal gonadotropin versus recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone in normogonadotropic women down-regulated with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist who were undergoing in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril 76:543–549

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Dickey RP, Thornton M, Nichols J et al (2002) Comparison of the efficacy and safety of a highly purified human follicle-stimulating hormone (Bravelle) and recombinant follitropin-beta for in vitro fertilization: a prospective, randomized study. Fertil Steril 77:1202–1208

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Selman HA, De Santo M, Sterzik K et al (2002) Effect of highly purified urinary follicle-stimulating hormone on oocyte and embryo quality. Fertil Steril 78:1061–1067

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Drakakis P, Loutradis D, Kallianidis K et al (2002) The clinical efficacy of recombinant FSH (r-FSH) as compared to highly purified urinary gonadotrophin (HMG-FD) and the use of a low starting dose of r-FSH in IVF or ICSI. A randomized prospective study. Ital J Gynaecol Obst 14:64–68

    Google Scholar 

  49. European and Israeli Study Group on Highly Purified Menotropin versus Recombinant Follicle-Stimulating Hormone (2002) Efficacy and safety of highly purified menotropin versus recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles: a randomized, comparative trial. Fertil Steril 78:520–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Dickey RP, Nichols JE, Steinkampf MP et al (2003) Highly purified human-derived follicle-stimulating hormone (Bravelle) has equivalent eKicacy to follitropin-beta (Follistim) in infertile women undergoing in vitro fertilization. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 1:63

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Gallego Pastor E, Fernandez-Shaw S, Mayoral M et al (2003) The treatment with recombinant FSH improvement the embryo quality in IVF cycles: a prospective randomiced study. Revista Iberoamericana de Fertilidady Reproduccion Humana 20:43–50

    Google Scholar 

  52. Meden-Vrtovec H, Mocnik-Roznik S, Tomazevic T et al (2003) Recombinant FSH vs. urinary FSH for ovarian stimulation in in vitro fertilization. J Reprod Med 48:799–803

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Balasch J, Peñarrubia J, Fábregues F et al (2003) Ovarian responses to recombinant FSH or HMG in normogonadotrophic women following pituitary desensitization by a depot GnRH agonist for assisted reproduction. Reprod Biomed Online 7:35–42

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Kilani Z, Dakkak A, Ghunaim S et al (2003) A prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing highly purified hMG with recombinant FSH in women undergoing ICSI: ovarian response and clinical outcomes. Hum Reprod 18:1194–1199

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Cheon KW, Byun HK, Yang KM et al (2004) Efficacy of recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone in improving oocyte quality in assisted reproductive techniques. J Reprod Med 49:733–738

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Rashidi BH, Sarvi F, Tehrani ES et al (2005) The effect of HMG and recombinant human FSH on oocyte quality: a randomized single-blind clinical trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 120:190–194

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Mohamed MA, Sbracia M, Pacchiarotti A et al (2006) Urinary follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) is more effective than recombinant FSH in older women in a controlled randomized study. Fertil Steril 85:1398–1403

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Andersen AN, Devroey P, Arce JC (2006) Clinical outcome following stimulation with highly purified hMG or recombinant FSH in patients undergoing IVF: a randomized assessor-blind controlled trial. Hum Reprod 21:3217–3227

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Antoine JM, De Mouzon J, Nicollet B, et al (2007) Effectiveness and tolerability of hFSH compared to rFSH in ICSI:the European study. IBSA Satelite Symposium abstract, ESHRE, Lyon.

  60. Bosch E, Vidal C, Labarta E et al (2008) Highly purified hMG versus recombinant FSH in ovarian hyperstimulation with GnRH antagonists–a randomized study. Hum Reprod 23:2346–2351

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Hompes PG, Broekmans FJ, Hoozemans DA et al (2008) Effectiveness of highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin vs. recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone in first-cycle in vitro fertilization-intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients. Fertil Steril 89:1685–1693

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Abate A, Nazzaro A, Salerno A et al (2009) Efficacy of recombinant versus human derived follicle stimulating hormone on the oocyte and embryo quality in IVF-ICSI cycles: randomised, controlled, multi-centre trial. Gynecol Endocrinol 25:479–484

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Baker VL, Fujimoto VY, Kettel LM et al (2009) Clinical efficacy of highly purified urinary FSH versus recombinant FSH in volunteers undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a randomized, multicenter, investigator-blind trial. Fertil Steril 91:1005–1011

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Aboulghar M, Saber W, Amin Y et al (2010) Prospective, randomized study comparing highly purified urinary follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and recombinant FSH for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome. Fertil Steril 94:2332–2334

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Pacchiarotti A, Sbracia M, Frega A et al (2010) Urinary hMG (Meropur) versus recombinant FSH plus recombinant LH (Pergoveris) in IVF: a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 94:2467–2469

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Papanikolaou EG, Fatemi H, Camus M et al (2010) Higher birth rate after recombinant hCG triggering compared with urinary-derived hCG in single-blastocyst IVF antagonist cycles: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 94:2902–2904

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Madani T, Mohammadi Yeganeh L et al (2013) Comparing the efficacy of urinary and recombinant hCG on oocyte/follicle ratio to trigger ovulation in women undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles: a randomized controlled trial. J Assist Reprod Genet 30:239–245

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Mak SM, Wong WY, Chung HS et al (2017) Effect of mid-follicular phase recombinant LH versus urinary HCG supplementation in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF - a prospective double-blinded randomized study. Reprod Biomed Online 34:258–266

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Platteau P, Andersen AN, Balen A et al (2006) Similar ovulation rates, but different follicular development with highly purified menotrophin compared with recombinant FSH in WHO group II anovulatory infertility: a randomized controlled study. Hum Reprod 21:1798–1804

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Platteau P, Smitz J, Albano C et al (2004) Exogenous luteinizing hormone activity may influence the treatment outcome in in vitro fertilization but not in intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Fertil Steril 81:1401–1404

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The study was supported by Key R&D projects in Liaoning Province (2020JH 2/10300118).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Reproductive Medicine, General Hospital of Northern Theater Command, No. 83, Wenhua Road, Shenhe District, Shenyang, 110016, Liaoning, China

    Yuexin Yu, Qian Zhang, Kaixuan Sun, Yinling Xiu, Xiliang Wang, Kaiyue Wang & Li Yan

Authors
  1. Yuexin Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qian Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kaixuan Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yinling Xiu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xiliang Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Kaiyue Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Li Yan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

KXS: Data collection, KYW: manuscript writing, LY: manuscript editing, QZ: data collection, YLX: data analysis, XLW: manuscript editing, YXY: protocol development.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuexin Yu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yu, Y., Zhang, Q., Sun, K. et al. The therapeutic effects of rFSH versus uFSH/uHMG on ovarian stimulation in women undergoing assisted reproductive technology: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Gynecol Obstet (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-023-07095-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-023-07095-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation