Michael von Wolff1, Ariane Germeyer, Frank Nawroth. 1. Division of Gynecologic Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine, University Women's Hospital, Bern, Switzerland, Department of Gynecologic Endocrinology and Fertility Disorders at Heidelberg University Women's Hospital, Center for Fertility, Prenatal Medicine, Endocrinology and Osteology, amedes Hamburg, FertiPROTEKT network.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fertility-preserving measures for women are increasingly being performed for non-medical reasons in Germany. This is now a controversial matter. METHODS: The authors searched the PubMed database for pertinent publications on the basis of their clinical and scientific experience and evaluated relevant data from the registry of the German FertiPROTEKT network (www.fertiprotekt. com). The various fertility-preserving measures that are available are described and critically discussed. RESULTS: In most cases, the creation of a fertility reserve currently involves the cryopreservation of unfertilized oocytes, rather than of ovarian tissue. Most of the women who decide to undergo this procedure are over 35 years old. According to data from the FertiPROTEKT registry, most such procedures carried out in the years 2012 and 2013 involved a single stimulation cycle. The theoretical probability of childbirth per stimulation is 40% in women under age 35 and 30% in women aged 35 to 39. If the oocytes are kept for use at a later date, rather than at once, the maternal risk is higher, because the mother is older during pregnancy. The risk to the child may be higher as well because of the need for in vitro fertilization (IVF). Pregnancy over age 40 often leads to complications such as gestational diabetes and pre-eclampsia. IVF may be associated with a higher risk of epigenetic abnormalities. Ethicists have upheld women's reproductive freedom while pointing out that so-called social freezing merely postpones social problems, rather than solving them. CONCLUSION: Fertility preservation for non-medical reasons should be critically discussed, and decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis.
BACKGROUND: Fertility-preserving measures for women are increasingly being performed for non-medical reasons in Germany. This is now a controversial matter. METHODS: The authors searched the PubMed database for pertinent publications on the basis of their clinical and scientific experience and evaluated relevant data from the registry of the German FertiPROTEKT network (www.fertiprotekt. com). The various fertility-preserving measures that are available are described and critically discussed. RESULTS: In most cases, the creation of a fertility reserve currently involves the cryopreservation of unfertilized oocytes, rather than of ovarian tissue. Most of the women who decide to undergo this procedure are over 35 years old. According to data from the FertiPROTEKT registry, most such procedures carried out in the years 2012 and 2013 involved a single stimulation cycle. The theoretical probability of childbirth per stimulation is 40% in women under age 35 and 30% in women aged 35 to 39. If the oocytes are kept for use at a later date, rather than at once, the maternal risk is higher, because the mother is older during pregnancy. The risk to the child may be higher as well because of the need for in vitro fertilization (IVF). Pregnancy over age 40 often leads to complications such as gestational diabetes and pre-eclampsia. IVF may be associated with a higher risk of epigenetic abnormalities. Ethicists have upheld women's reproductive freedom while pointing out that so-called social freezing merely postpones social problems, rather than solving them. CONCLUSION: Fertility preservation for non-medical reasons should be critically discussed, and decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis.
Authors: Andreas Müller; Katja Keller; Jennifer Wacker; Ralf Dittrich; Gudrun Keck; Markus Montag; Hans Van der Ven; David Wachter; Matthias W Beckmann; Wolfgang Distler Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2012-01-09 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Sven Sandin; Karl-Gösta Nygren; Anastasia Iliadou; Christina M Hultman; Abraham Reichenberg Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-07-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ralf Dittrich; Laura Lotz; Gudrun Keck; Inge Hoffmann; Andreas Mueller; Matthias W Beckmann; Hans van der Ven; Markus Montag Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2011-12-16 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: P Humaidan; N P Polyzos; B Alsbjerg; K Erb; A L Mikkelsen; H O Elbaek; E G Papanikolaou; C Y Andersen Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2013-06-09 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Michael von Wolff; Markus Montag; Ralf Dittrich; Dominik Denschlag; Frank Nawroth; Barbara Lawrenz Journal: Arch Gynecol Obstet Date: 2011-03-24 Impact factor: 2.344
Authors: Alma Linkeviciute; Fedro A Peccatori; Virginia Sanchini; Giovanni Boniolo Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2015-07-03 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Elisangela V Espirito Santo; Felipe Dieamant; Claudia G Petersen; Ana L Mauri; Laura D Vagnini; Adriana Renzi; Camila Zamara; João Batista A Oliveira; Ricardo L R Baruffi; José G Franco Journal: JBRA Assist Reprod Date: 2017-06-01