Search

Abstract The prolonged lockdown of health services providing high-complexity fertility treatments –as currently recommended by many reproductive medicine entities– is detrimental for society as a whole, and infertility patients in particular. Globally, approximately 0.3% of all infants born every year are conceived using assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatments. By contrast, the total number of COVID-19 deaths reported so far represents approximately 1.0% of the total deaths expected to occur worldwide over the first three months of the current year. It seems, therefore, that the number of infants expected to be conceived and born –but who will not be so due to the lockdown of infertility services– might be as significant as the total number of deaths attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic. We herein propose remedies that include a prognostic-stratification of more vulnerable infertility cases in order to plan a progressive restart of worldwide fertility treatments. At a time when preventing complications and limiting burdens for national health systems represent relevant issues, our viewpoint might help competent authorities and health care providers to identify patients who should be prioritized for the continuation of fertility care in a safe environment.

Objective: Twisted uterus is detected when the body of the uterus is rotated from the cervical canal. This anomaly may be due to different causes, such as uterine fibroids, endometriosis or the presence of both. The study has aimed to compare the effect of the twisted uterus cause in terms of reproductive treatment outcomes. Materials and methods: It consisted of a retrospective study of twisted uterus cases with repeated implantation failure (more than three embryo transfers or four blastocysts transferred unsuccessfully) in our ultrasound department. The twisted uterus was defined when the vaginal probe needed to be rotated to assess the endometrial line thoroughly or when the coronal view was seen by 2D scan. From 2017 to 2020, 879 gynecological ultrasounds were performed. For statistical analysis, we carried out a logistical regression analysis adjusted by confounding factors. Results: From 145 patients included only 92 patients underwent reproductive treatments. With the known cause of uterine torsion. 56 patients with endometriosis, 18 with uterine myoma and the remaining 18 suffered from both. After assisted reproductive treatment, the endometriosis group showed the highest clinical pregnancy rate (53.57%) compared to myoma (22.22%) and endometriosis and myoma (38.89%) groups. Conclusion: Uterine myoma capable of causing uterine torsion may affect embryo implantation more than endometriosis. Prospective randomized studies with a larger number of patients would be needed to confirm these findings.

Objective: To compare the oocyte yield between follicular-phase stimulation (FPS) and luteal-phase stimulation (LPS) in suboptimal responders. Design: Prospective, randomized, crossover clinical trial. Patient(s): Forty-one patients with infertility according to the POSEIDON (Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing IndividualizeD Oocyte Number) criteria (1b/2b). Intervention(s): Crossover study on 2 assigned ovarian stimulations that started randomly in the follicular or luteal phase. The in vitro fertilization cycles were not consecutive but separated in time (45 days to 6 months). The random crossover design ensured that all subjects received the first treatment by chance. Main Outcome Measure(s): The primary objective was the number of cumulus-oocyte complexes retrieved in each cycle. Secondary objectives were number of metaphase II and fertilized oocytes, additional doses of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone, and the duration of ovarian stimulation (days). Result(s): The mean number of cumulus-oocyte complexes retrieved was similar between the FPS and LPS groups (7.5 ± 4.6 vs. 7.0 ± 4.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] for the mean, 5.8–8.7 vs. 5.6–8.3, respectively; the difference between means, −0.5; 95% CI, −1.8 to +1.5). Similarly, the mean number of metaphase II oocytes retrieved was not different between the FPS and LPS groups (5.4 ± 3.6 vs. 5.2 ± 2.8; 95% CI for the mean, 4.2–6.5 vs. 4.3–6.1, respectively; the difference between means, −0.2; 95% CI, −1.2 to +1.1). Moreover, the secondary objectives were similar between FPS and LPS groups. Conclusion(s): In this study, the oocyte yield in LPS did not increase in suboptimal responders compared with that in FPS when the onset of LPS was separated in time from FPS. Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT039393990 https://beta.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03939390.

Endometrial receptivity and its management in assisted reproduction is now a significant focus of research interest. Endometrial receptivity tests, which analyze different panels of gene expression, are usually offered in fertility clinics to determine the women's individual ‘window of implantation’, providing a personalized timing for embryo transfer. However, there are still no definite indications on whether its inclusion in the study of the infertile couple or the study of patients with repeated implantation failure is essential.

Abstract Background In young women with poor ovarian response, luteal-phase ovarian stimulation (LPOS) is a potential method for collecting competent oocytes. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of LPOS compared with follicular phase ovarian stimulation (FPOS) in young women with poor ovarian response (POR). Methods This single-center, prospective, randomized pilot study compared LPOS and FPOS in women with POR fulfilling Bologna criteria who underwent in vitro fertilization at the Instituto Bernabeu. The primary outcome was the number of metaphase II (MII) oocytes obtained by follicular puncture. Results Sixty women were included in the study, with 27 women completing LPOS and 30 undergoing FPOS. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of MII oocytes obtained between the LPOS group and the FPOS group (2.1 ± 2.0 vs. 2.6 ± 2.2, p = 0.31). Length of stimulation was also similar in both groups (8.35 ± 2.8 vs. 8.15 ± 4.1 days, p = 0.69). Similarly, there was no significant difference in the follicle-stimulating hormone total dose, number of cumulus-oocyte complexes, survival rate, fertilization rate, or cancellation rate between groups. A significantly higher Ovarian Sensitivity Index was observed in the LPOS group versus the FPOS group (0.96 vs. 0.57, p = 0.037). Conclusion LPOS was comparable with FPOS in terms of efficacy and may improve ovarian responsiveness in young women with POR. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02625532 ; EudraCT identifier: 2015–003856-31 .