 |
JOURNAL TOOLS |
| Opzioni di pubblicazione |
| eTOC |
| Per abbonarsi |
| Sottometti un articolo |
| Segnala alla tua biblioteca |
ARTICLE TOOLS |
| Estratti |
| Permessi |
| Per citare questo articolo |
| Share |
I TUOI DATI
I TUOI ORDINI
CESTINO ACQUISTI
N. prodotti: 0
Totale ordine: € 0,00
COME ORDINARE
I TUOI ABBONAMENTI
I TUOI ARTICOLI
I TUOI EBOOK
COUPON
ACCESSIBILITÀ
REVIEWS
Minerva Ginecologica 2016 December;68(6):625-41
Copyright © 2016 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA
lingua: Inglese
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.