Advertisement

Assisted Reproduction Before and After Uterus Transplantation

  • Lars B. Nilsson
  • Jan I. OlofssonEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Assisted reproduction using in vitro fertilization (IVF) is an established therapy when sperm and egg cannot meet inside the body and was originally developed as treatment for infertility but advances in the spectrum of therapeutic alternatives have broadened indications to include also patients with genetic problems and lately, fertility preservation. Uterus transplantation is today the only available treatment for women with absolute uterine factor infertility enabling them to reach a pregnancy and live birth, where assisted reproduction constitutes an integral part of the treatment. In this chapter, pretreatment assessments and considerations prior to inclusion and some clinical aspects of IVF treatments from the initial Swedish study are covered. In view of the rapid spread of this combined assisted reproduction technique and transplantation procedure, our focus is toward the assessment of the effectiveness of these interventions in recognition of the possibility that they may become future routine clinical practice, in addition to some aspects of potential for further developments time ahead.

References

  1. Amato P. Ovarian reserve testing. In: Falcone T, Hurd W, editors. Clinical reproductive medicine and surgery. Cham: Springer; 2017.Google Scholar
  2. Beall SA, DeCherney A. History and challenges surrounding ovarian stimulation in the treatment of infertility. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:795–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ben-Rafael Z, Bar-Hava I, Levy T, Orvieto R. Simplifying ovulation induction for surrogacy in women with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:1470–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bento F, Esteves SC, Agarwal A, editors. Quality management in ART clinics: a practical guide. New York: Springer; 2013. isbn:978-1-4419-7139-5.Google Scholar
  5. Brännström M, Johannesson L, Bokström H, Kvarnström N, Mölne J, et al. Livebirth after uterus transplantation. Lancet. 2014;385:607–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brännström M, Bokström H, Dahm-Kähler P, Diaz-Garcia C, Ekberg J, et al. One uterus bridging three generations: first live birth after mother-to-daughter uterus transplantation. Fertil Steril. 2016;106:261–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cerne A, Bergh C, Borg K, Ek I, Gejervall AL, et al. Pre-ovarian block versus paracervical block for oocyte retrieval. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:2916–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, García-Velasco JA. Impact of blastocyst biopsy and comprehensive chromosome screening technology on preimplantation genetic screening: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;30:281–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Vos A, Van Landuyt L, Santos-Ribeiro S, Camus M, Van de Velde H, et al. Cumulative live birth rates after fresh and vitrified cleavage-stage versus blastocyst-stage embryo transfer in the first treatment cycle. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:2442–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fedele L, Bianchi S, Frontino G, Ciappina N, Fontana E, Borruto F. Laparoscopic findings and pelvic anatomy in Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:1111–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Friedler S, Grin L, Liberti G, Saar-Ryss B, Rabinson Y, et al. The reproductive potential of patients with Mayer–Rokitansky–Küster–Hauser syndrome using gestational surrogacy: a systematic review. Reprod Biomed Online. 2016;32:54–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Groenewoud ER, Cantineau AEP, Kollen BJ, et al. What is the optimal means of preparing the endometrium in frozen–thawed embryo transfer cycles? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19:458–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Karlström PO, Holte J, Hadziosmanovic N, Rodriguez-Wallberg KA, Olofsson JI. Does ovarian stimulation regimen affect IVF outcome? a two-centre, real-world retrospective study using predominantly cleavage-stage, single embryo transfer. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018;36:59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kushnir VA, Barad DH, Albertini DF, Darmon SK, Gleicher N. Systematic review of worldwide trends in assisted reproductive technology 2004–2013. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2017;15:6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Matsota P, Kaminioti E, Kostopanagiotou G. Anesthesia related toxic effects on in vitro fertilization outcome: burden of proof. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:475362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Olofsson JI, Banker MR, Sjoblom LP. Quality management systems for your in vitro fertilization clinic’s laboratory: why bother? J Hum Reprod Sci. 2013;6:3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Oppelt P, Renner SP, Kellermann A, Brucker S, Hauser GA, et al. Clinical aspects of Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuester-Hauser syndrome: recommendations for clinical diagnosis and staging. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:792–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pribenszky C, Nilselid AM, Montag M. Time-lapse culture with morphokinetic embryo selection improves pregnancy and live birth chances and reduces early pregnancy loss: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017;35:511–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Raziel A, Vaknin Z, Schachter M, Strassburger D, Herman A, et al. Ultrasonographic-guided percutaneous transabdominal puncture for oocyte retrieval in a rare patient with Rokitansky syndrome in an in vitro fertilization surrogacy program. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:1760–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Raziel A, Friedler S, Gidoni Y, Ben Ami I, Strassburger D, Ron-El R. Surrogate in vitro fertilization outcome in typical and atypical forms of Mayer–Rokitansky Küster–Hauser syndrome. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:126–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tan J, Kan A, Hitkari J, Taylor B, Tallon N, et al. The role of the endometrial receptivity array (ERA) in patients who have failed euploid embryo transfers. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35(4):683–92.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-1112-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Thurin A, Hausken J, Hillensjö T, Jablonowska B, Pinborg A, et al. Elective single-embryo transfer versus double-embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2392–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tobias T, Sharara FI, Franasiak JM, Heiser PW, Pinckney-Clark E. Promoting the use of elective single embryo transfer in clinical practice. Fertil Res Pract. 2016;2:1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tsai HC, Yoshida T, Chuang TY, Yang SF, Chang CC, et al. Transversus abdominis plane block: an updated review of anatomy and techniques. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:8284363.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. United Nations. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). 2006. https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html. Accessed 4 Feb 2018.
  26. Van Wely M, Kwan I, Burt AL, Thomas J, Vail A, Van der Veen F, Al-Inany HG. Recombinant versus urinary gonadotrophin for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(2):CD005354.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005354.pub2.
  27. WHO laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. 5th ed. Cambridge: WHO Cambridge University Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  28. Wikland M, Nilsson L, Hansson R, Hamberger L, Janson PO. Collection of human oocytes by the use of sonography. Fertil Steril. 1983;39:603–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wikland M, Enk L, Hammarberg K, Nilsson L. Use of a vaginal transducer for oocyte retrieval in an IVF/ET program. J Clin Ultrasound. 1987;15:245–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Reproductive Medicine, Sahlgrenska University HospitalGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyInstitute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg UniversityGothenburgSweden
  3. 3.Reproductive Medicine, Karolinska University HospitalStockholmSweden
  4. 4.Department of Women’s and Children’s HealthKarolinska InstitutetStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations