Advanced Search

Home > Journals > Minerva Ginecologica > Past Issues > Minerva Ginecologica 2016 December;68(6) > Minerva Ginecologica 2016 December;68(6):625-41

ISSUES AND ARTICLES   MOST READ   eTOC

CURRENT ISSUEMINERVA GINECOLOGICA

A Journal on Obstetrics and Gynecology

Indexed/Abstracted in: EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Emerging Sources Citation Index

Frequency: Bi-Monthly

ISSN 0026-4784

Online ISSN 1827-1650

 

Minerva Ginecologica 2016 December;68(6):625-41

    REVIEWS

Challenges in ovarian stimulation

Philippe MERVIEL 1-3, Marie T. LE MARTELOT 1, 2, Sylvie ROCHE 1, 2, Caroline LELIÈVRE 1, 2, Michel MENARD 1, Stéphanie AUGET 2, Damien BEAUVILLARD 1, 3, 4, Véronique AMICE 1, 4, Marc De BRAEKELEER 1, 3, 4

1 ART Center, Brest University Hospital, Brest, France; 2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brest University Hospital, Brest, France; 3 Brest Medicine University, Brest, France; 4 Department of Reproductive Biology and Cytogenetics, Brest University Hospital, Brest, France

In 2016, ovarian stimulation faces two main challenges: how to obtain good quality oocytes while not endangering the patients treated, but also limited by maternal age and poor ovarian responders (POR). The first IVF birth, Louise Brown, was obtained from a natural cycle. With the introduction, in the 1980s of gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) and in the 2000s of GnRH antagonists (GnRHant), stimulation became plurifollicular (and source of consequences). Today, only about 50% of the transferred blastocysts after IVF lead to a pregnancy. The purpose of this review was to describe the current challenges and limits of ovarian stimulation.

language: English


FULL TEXT  REPRINTS

top of page