4.6 Article

Ovarian tissue cryopreservation and retransplantation - what do patients think about it?

Journal

REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE
Volume 32, Issue 4, Pages 394-400

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2015.12.012

Keywords

cancer; cryobank; fertility preservation; ovarian tissue cryopreservation; ovarian tissue transplantation; survey

Funding

  1. Wilhelm Sander-Stiftung, Munich, Germany [2008.086.1, 2012.127.1]
  2. German Research Association (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) [DI 1525/4-1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cryopreservation of ovarian tissue has been successfully applied clinically, with over 60 live births to date. The aim of the present study was to perform a survey of patients who have had ovarian tissue cryopreserved in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Erlangen University Hospital, in order to obtain information about: why patients opt for fertility preservation; their current fertility; pregnancy attempts and outcomes; and their intended plans for the cryopreserved ovarian tissue. In total, 147 women took part in the survey (average age 25.0 +/- 7.0 years; response rate 48%; mean follow-up period 6 years). Sixty-six reported regular menstrual cycles; 48 were amenorrhoeic. Sixty-two women had tried to conceive; 33 reported pregnancies. Twenty-five had delivered healthy children after conceiving naturally; eight had conceived with assisted reproduction. Five patients had had their ovarian tissue retransplanted. Although many patients continued to have ovarian function, none of them regretted choosing cryopreservation of ovarian tissue. Cryopreservation of ovarian tissue is an effective option and is very important for women diagnosed with cancer. Analyses of the clinical outcomes in these patients are essential in order to identify those patients capable of benefiting most from the procedure and in order to improve the technique. (C) 2016 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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