Current Status of Assisted Reproductive Techniques (ART)

Part of the International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine book series (LIME, volume 43)

Three decades have passed since the birth of Louise Brown, the first child born as a result of in vitro fertilization (IVF) [1] and it is difficult to imagine the world without assisted reproductive technologies (ART). The pioneering research leading to that development seemed cutting edge at the time [2]. The first pregnancy obtained by IVF implanted in the tube demonstrating one of the many risks entailed in separation of biological and social parenthood.


Embryo Transfer Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis Ovarian Reserve Ovarian Response Preimplantation Genetic Screening 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Steptoe PC, Edwards RG. Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet 1978;2(8085):366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Edwards RG, Steptoe PC, Purdy JM. Fertilization and cleavage in vitro of preovulator human oocytes. Nature 1970;227(5265):1307–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Steptoe PC, Edwards RG. Reimplantation of a human embryo with subsequent tubal pregnancy. Lancet 1976;1(7965):880–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Edwards RG, Sharpe DJ. Social values and research in human embryology. Nature 1971;231(5298):87–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kirby MD. Bioethics of IVF – the state of the debate. J Med Ethics 1984;10(1):45–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cohen J, Fehilly CB, Fishel SB, Edwards RG, Hewitt J, Rowland GF, et al. Male infertility successfully treated by in-vitro fertilisation. Lancet 1984;1(8388):1239–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Greenfeld DA. Gay male couples and assisted reproduction: should we assist? Fertil Steril 2007;88(1):18–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boodman G. Fatherhood by a new formula: using an egg donor and a gestational surrogate, some gay men are becoming dads-and charting new legal and ethical territory. Washington Post 2005.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Woodward BJ, Norton WJ. Lesbian intra-partner oocyte donation: a possible shake-up in the Garden of Eden? Hum Fertil (Camb) 2006;9(4):217–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Andersen AN, Goossens V, Ferraretti AP, Bhattacharya S, Felberbaum R, de Mouzon J, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2004: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2008; 23(4): 756–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wright VC, Chang J, Jeng G, Chen M, Macaluso M. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance – United States, 2004. MMWR Surveill Summ 2007;56(6):1–22.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Baird DT, Collins J, Egozcue J, Evers LH, Gianaroli L, Leridon H, et al. Fertility and ageing. Hum Reprod Update 2005;11(3):261–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Greb RR, Behre HM, Simoni M. Pharmacogenetics in ovarian stimulation – current concepts and future options. Reprod Biomed Online 2005;11(5):589–600.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fauser BC, Diedrich K, Devroey P. Predictors of ovarian response: progress towards individualized treatment in ovulation induction and ovarian stimulation. Hum Reprod Update 2008;14(1):1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lunenfeld B, Rabau E, Sulomivici S, Eshkol. [Treatment of amenorrhea by gonadotropic substances from women’s urine.]. Harefuah 1963;64:289–92.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Van Wely M, Westergaard LG, Bossuyt PM, Van der Veen F. Human menopausal gonadotropin versus recombinant follicle stimulation hormone for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003(1):CD003973.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Palermo G, Joris H, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC. Pregnancies after intracytoplasmic injection of single spermatozoon into an oocyte. Lancet 1992;340(8810):17–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jain T, Gupta RS. Trends in the use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection in the United States. N Engl J Med 2007;357(3):251–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bhattacharya S, Hamilton MP, Shaaban M, Khalaf Y, Seddler M, Ghobara T, et al. Conventional in-vitro fertilisation versus intracytoplasmic sperm injection for the treatment of non-male-factor infertility: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2001;357(9274):2075–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leunens L, Celestin-Westreich S, Bonduelle M, Liebaers I, Ponjaert-Kristoffersen I. Follow-up of cognitive and motor development of 10-year-old singleton children born after ICSI compared with spontaneously conceived children. Hum Reprod 2008;23(1):105–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kurinczuk JJ. Safety issues in assisted reproduction technology. From theory to reality – just what are the data telling us about ICSI offspring health and future fertility and should we be concerned? Hum Reprod 2003;18(5):925–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fasouliotis SJ, Safran A, Porat-Katz A, Simon A, Laufer N, Lewin A. A high predictive value of the first testicular fine needle aspiration in patients with non-obstructive azoospermia for sperm recovery at the subsequent attempt. Hum Reprod 2002;17(1):139–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lewin A, Reubinoff B, Porat-Katz A, Weiss D, Eisenberg V, Arbel R, et al. Testicular fine needle aspiration: the alternative method for sperm retrieval in non-obstructive azoospermia. Hum Reprod 1999;14(7):1785–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    2006 Guidelines for Gamete and Embryo Donation. Fertil Steril 2006;86(5 Suppl):S38–50.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Heng BC. The advent of international ‘mail-order’ egg donation. Bjog 2006;113(11):1225–7.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Heng BC. Factors influencing the reimbursement rate of egg donation within a competitive free-market system. Reprod Biomed Online 2007;15(1):16–8.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cohen J. Procreative tourism and reproductive freedom. Reprod Biomed Online 2006;13(1):145–6.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    EU. DIRECTIVE 2004/23/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing,preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells. In: PARLIAMENT E, editor: EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, 2004.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Craft I, Flyckt S, Heeley G, Layland S, Thornhill A, Kelada E. Will removal of anonymity influence the recruitment of egg donors? A survey of past donors and recipients. Reprod Biomed Online 2005;10(3):325–9.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Landau R, Weissenberg R, Madgar I. A child of “hers”: older single mothers and their children conceived through IVF with both egg and sperm donation. Fertil Steril 2008; 90(3): 576–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Buckett WM, Chian RC, Holzer H, Dean N, Usher R, Tan SL. Obstetric outcomes and congenital abnormalities after in vitro maturation, in vitro fertilization, and intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110(4):885–91.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cha KY, Chian RC. Maturation in vitro of immature human oocytes for clinical use. Hum Reprod Update 1998;4(2):103–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Alexandre H. A history of mammalian embryological research. Int J Dev Biol 2001;45(3):457–67.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gardner DK, Lane M. Culture of viable human blastocysts in defined sequential serum-free media. Hum Reprod 1998;13 Suppl 3:148–59;discussion 160.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Schieve LA, Meikle SF, Ferre C, Peterson HB, Jeng G, Wilcox LS. Low and very low birth weight in infants conceived with use of assisted reproductive technology. N Engl J Med 2002;346(10):731–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Behr B, Wang H. Effects of culture conditions on IVF outcome. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2004;115 Suppl 1:S72–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Katz-Jaffe MG, Gardner DK. Embryology in the era of proteomics. Theriogenology 2007;68 Suppl 1:S125–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Barker DJ. Fetal origins of coronary heart disease. BMJ 1995;311(6998):171–4.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Beardsley T. Embryo sexing. Cattle now, people next? Nature 1983;304(5924):301.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Braude P. Preimplantation diagnosis for genetic susceptibility. N Engl J Med 2006;355(6):541–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Schenker JG. Gender selection: cultural and religious perspectives. J Assist Reprod Genet 2002;19(9):400–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mastenbroek S, Twisk M, van Echten-Arends J, Sikkema-Raddatz B, Korevaar JC, Verhoeve HR, et al. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic screening. N Engl J Med 2007;357(1):9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Blake DA, Farquhar CM, Johnson N, Proctor M. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted conception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007(4):CD002118.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Martin PM, Welch HG. Probabilities for singleton and multiple pregnancies after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1998;70(3):478–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Pandian Z, Templeton A, Serour G, Bhattacharya S. Number of embryos for transfer after IVF and ICSI: a Cochrane review. Hum Reprod 2005;20(10):2681–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    SART. Assisted Reproductive Technology Success Rates for 2002. In: Prevention CfDCa, editor. National Summary and Fertility Clinic Reports. Washington,DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2004.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Patrizio P, Fragouli E, Bianchi V, Borini A, Wells D. Molecular methods for selection of the ideal oocyte. Reprod Biomed Online 2007;15(3):346–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Brown JA, Buckingham K, Abou-Setta A, Buckett W. Ultrasound versus ‘clinical touch’ for catheter guidance during embryo transfer in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007(1):CD006107.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Buckett WM. A meta-analysis of ultrasound-guided versus clinical touch embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2003;80(4):1037–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Abou-Setta AM, Mansour RT, Al-Inany HG, Aboulghar MM, Aboulghar MA, Serour GI. Among women undergoing embryo transfer, is the probability of pregnancy and live birth improved with ultrasound guidance over clinical touch alone? A systemic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized trials. Fertil Steril 2007;88(2):333–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Achache H, Revel A. Endometrial receptivity markers, the journey to successful embryo implantation. Hum Reprod Update 2006;12(6):731–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Revel A, Helman A, Koler M, Shushan A, Goldshmidt O, Zcharia E, et al. Heparanase improves mouse embryo implantation. Fertil Steril 2005;83(3):580–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Simon A, Safran A, Revel A, Aizenman E, Reubinoff B, Porat-Katz A, et al. Hyaluronic acid can successfully replace albumin as the sole macromolecule in a human embryo transfer medium. Fertil Steril 2003;79(6):1434–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Barash A, Dekel N, Fieldust S, Segal I, Schechtman E, Granot I. Local injury to the endometrium doubles the incidence of successful pregnancies in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2003;79(6):1317–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zhou L, Li R, Wang R, Huang HX, Zhong K. Local injury to the endometrium in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation cycles improves implantation rates. Fertil Steril 2007.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Oktay K, Cil AP, Bang H. Efficiency of oocyte cryopreservation: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2006;86(1):70–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Gougeon A. Dynamics of follicular growth in the human: a model from preliminary results. Hum Reprod 1986;1(2):81–7.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Gougeon A. Regulation of ovarian follicular development in primates: facts and hypotheses. Endocr Rev 1996;17(2):121–55.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Gougeon A, Ecochard R, Thalabard JC. Age-related changes of the population of human ovarian follicles: increase in the disappearance rate of non-growing and early-growing follicles in aging women. Biol Reprod 1994;50(3):653–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Revel A, Schenker J. Ovarian tissue banking for cancer patients: is ovarian cortex cryopreservation presently justified? Hum Reprod 2004;19(1):14–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Weintraub M, Gross E, Kadari A, Ravitsky V, Safran A, Laufer N, et al. Should ovarian cryopreservation be offered to girls with cancer. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2007;48(1):4–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Revel A, Elami A, Bor A, Yavin S, Natan Y, Arav A. Whole sheep ovary cryopreservation and transplantation. Fertil Steril 2004;82(6):1714–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    ACOG committee opinion number 397, February 2008: surrogate motherhood. Obstet Gynecol 2008;111(2 Pt 1):465–70.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Bahadur G. Death and conception. Hum Reprod 2002;17(10):2769–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyHebrew University-Hadassah Medical SchoolIsrael

Personalised recommendations