4.6 Article

The safety and satisfaction of ovarian tissue cryopreservation in prepubertal and adolescent girls

期刊

REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE
卷 40, 期 4, 页码 547-554

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.01.009

关键词

Adolescent females; Cancer; Fertility preservation; Ovarian tissue cryopreservation; Ovarian tissue transplantation; Prepubertal females

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research question: Is ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC) for fertility preservation in prepubertal and adolescent girls safe, and who would benefit most from the procedure? Design: Survey and retrospective study including patients who had OTC under the age of 18 years in a single centre for fertility preservation. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone levels were measured as a marker for detection of diminished ovarian reserve. Results: Fifty-three from 102 women participated in the survey (12 deceased, 19 declined, 17 unreachable, 1 palliative). The average age at OTC was 14.8 +/- 2.3 (range: 6-17) years and at survey 21.9 +/- 4.3 (range: 16-33) years. Ovarian tissue retrieval (laparoscopy: n = 45, laparotomy: n = 8) was without complications in 52 cases. In 23 (53.5%) of the 43 women who were post-menarchal at OTC, transient amenorrhoea occurred. At survey, 15 women reported a regular menstrual cycle, 25 used oral contraceptives, 9 women reported hormone replacement therapy due to primary ovary insufficiency and 4 had amenorrhoea. Two patients reported the birth of a healthy child after IVF, while 51 patients are still childless, mostly due to their young age (mean: 21.2 years). To date, one patient has had transplantation of the ovarian tissue (17 years at cryopreservation). Forty-nine of the interviewees would again decide on OTC, while three argued against it on the basis of the previous financial cost; one woman was unsure. Conclusions: Children with cancer may be at risk for gonadal insufficiency. OTC is practically the only technique that can be offered to young girls. The procedure is safe and well accepted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据