4.6 Article

Childhood growth of term singletons born after frozen compared with fresh embryo transfer

Journal

REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE
Volume 43, Issue 4, Pages 719-726

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.08.002

Keywords

ART; Assisted reproduction; Child growth; FET; Frozen embryo transfer

Funding

  1. Finnish Government
  2. Alma and KA Snellman Foundation, Oulu, Finland

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that term singletons born after frozen embryo transfer showed similar growth patterns up to 5 years of age compared to those born after fresh embryo transfer and natural conception. This suggests that the use of embryo cryopreservation in assisted reproduction is safe and feasible, with no significant differences in childhood growth observed among the three groups.
Research question: Is the growth of term singletons born after frozen embryo transfer (FET) comparable to those born after fresh embryo transfer and natural conception up to 5 years of age? Design: Observational cohort study in an academic medical centre and municipal child health clinics with repeated measurements carried out by medical professionals. Term singletons born after FET (n = 110) and fresh embryo transfer (n = 181) and their matched natural conception controls (n = 543) born in Oulu, Northern Finland, were included. Mean weights, lengths, heights and head circumferences at the ages of 4, 8 and 18 months and 3 and 5 years were compared. At 3 and 5 years, body mass indices were compared. Results: Childhood growth did not differ between term singletons born after FET, fresh embryo transfer and natural conception, correcting for exact age at measurement and adjusting for maternal body mass index and paternal height. Conclusions: Similar growth between children born after FET, fresh embryo transfer and natural conception offers reassurance of the safety and feasibility of the steadily increasing use of embryo cryopreservation in assisted reproduction.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available