4.4 Article

Laparoscopic unilateral oophorectomy for ovarian tissue cryopreservation in children

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY
卷 54, 期 3, 页码 543-549

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2018.06.005

关键词

Ovarian tissue cryopreseivation; Children; Laparoscopy; Oophorectomy; Fertility preservation

资金

  1. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) National Center for Translational Research in Reproduction and Infertility (NCTRI) [P50HD076188]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/Purpose: Many survivors of childhood cancer will experience premature gonadal insufficiency or infertility as a consequence of their medical treatments. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC) remains an experimental means of fertility preservation with few reports focused on the surgical technique and postoperative outcomes for OTC in children. Methods: This is a single institution, retrospective review of OTC cases from January 2011 to December 2017. Children were eligible for OTC if they had a greater than 80% risk of premature ovarian insufficiency or infertility owing to their anticipated gonadotoxic medical treatment. Results: OTC was performed in 64 patients. Median age was 12 years old (range: 5 months-23 years). Nearly half (48%) of the patients were premenarchal. Laparoscopic unilateral oophorectomy was performed in 84% of patients. There were no surgical complications. In 76% of patients, OTC was performed in conjunction with an ancillary procedure. The majority (96%) of patients were discharged within 24 hours. Median time from operation to medical therapy was six days, with no unanticipated treatments delays attributable to OTC. Conclusions: Laparoscopic unilateral oophorectomy for OTC can be performed safely, in combination with other ancillary procedures, as an outpatient procedure without delaying medical therapy for children facing a fertility-threatening diagnosis or treatment. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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