SemOpenAlex |

SemOpenAlex

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2899427786> ?p ?o ?g. }

Showing items 1 to 100 of ±117 with 100 items per page.

W2899427786 endingPage "987" @default.
W2899427786 startingPage "981" @default.
W2899427786 abstract "Oocyte and embryo donation have evolved significantly since they were first introduced to treat human infertility nearly four decades ago. Social, ethical, and regulatory challenges to oocyte and embryo donation have generated controversy and invited public scrutiny. However, oocyte and embryo donation continued to provide physicians the opportunity to treat the “untreatable.” Undoubtedly, clinical practices related to oocyte and embryo donation have greatly changed over the years. Yet, they have endured as viable choices of treatment for many patients and their physicians, remained popular owing to their versatility, and, perhaps most importantly, provided consistently high pregnancy success rates. Oocyte and embryo donation have evolved significantly since they were first introduced to treat human infertility nearly four decades ago. Social, ethical, and regulatory challenges to oocyte and embryo donation have generated controversy and invited public scrutiny. However, oocyte and embryo donation continued to provide physicians the opportunity to treat the “untreatable.” Undoubtedly, clinical practices related to oocyte and embryo donation have greatly changed over the years. Yet, they have endured as viable choices of treatment for many patients and their physicians, remained popular owing to their versatility, and, perhaps most importantly, provided consistently high pregnancy success rates. Discuss: You can discuss this article with its authors and other readers at https://www.fertstertdialog.com/users/16110-fertility-and-sterility/posts/38561-26919 Discuss: You can discuss this article with its authors and other readers at https://www.fertstertdialog.com/users/16110-fertility-and-sterility/posts/38561-26919 Nearly 35 years have passed since the first birth of an infant born to a recipient of an embryo recovered from the uterine lavage of an oocyte donor (1Bustillo M. Buster J.E. Cohen S.W. Hamilton F. Thorneycroft I.H. Simon J.A. et al.Delivery of a healthy infant following nonsurgical ovum transfer.JAMA. 1984; 251: 889Crossref PubMed Scopus (32) Google Scholar). The conception occurred in vivo as a result of a well timed vaginal insemination of a fresh ejaculate placed into a paid anonymous oocyte donor following her spontaneous ovulation. Basic biologic principles learned largely from animal husbandry were applied to human subjects enrolled in an institutionally reviewed and approved clinical trial at Harbor/UCLA Medical Center (2Seidel Jr., E.G. Superovulation and embryo transfer in cattle.Science. 1981; 211: 351-357Crossref PubMed Scopus (112) Google Scholar, 3Bustillo M. Buster J.E. Cohen S.W. Thorneycroft I.H. Simon J.A. Boyers S.P. et al.Nonsurgical ovum transfer as a treatment in infertile women.JAMA. 1984; 251: 1171-1173Crossref PubMed Scopus (68) Google Scholar). Investigators used a patented device designed specifically to wash out the endometrial cavity of the female donor to recover the unhatched and unimplanted embryo, which was located in 80 mL of carefully recovered flushed fluid that was then scanned under a tabletop light microscope (4Sauer M.V. Bustillo M. Gorrill M.J. Louw J. Marshall J.R. Buster J.E. An instrument for the recovery of preimplantation uterine ova.Obstet Gynecol. 1988; 71: 804-806PubMed Google Scholar). The harvested blastocyst was immediately transferred into the uterus of the infertile recipient, who was also naturally cycling and synchronized to ovulate around the same day as the donor. Although simple in concept and design, the experiment was remarkably complicated given all the clinical variables and unknowns involved. Yet, success was achieved in 1983, and a healthy baby was vaginally delivered at term in January 1984. The news from Los Angeles was sensational and the birth received international press attention. Reflecting the public's inauspicious view of gamete donation, a prejudice that in my opinion continues to influence people today, the headline in the Los Angeles Times announced the birth as “Woman Bears Donor's Baby” (5Nelson H. Beautiful boy born in Long Beach. Los Angele Times, February 3, 1984.Google Scholar). It wasn't the “space race” to the moon, but I think it is fair to say that there was pressure to produce a first birth in the field of oocyte and embryo donation. The Harbor/UCLA team led by Dr. John E. Buster was well aware of the progress being made by Drs. Carl Wood and Alan Trounson in Australia, who were using eggs retrieved by laparoscopy and donated by in vitro fertilization (IVF) patients. Earlier that year, Trounson et al. were the first to report a pregnancy with the use of this approach, but unfortunately the recipient suffered a miscarriage (6Trounson A. Leeton J. Besanko M. Wood C. Conti A. Pregnancy established in an infertile patient after transfer of a donated embryo fertilized in vitro.Br Med J. 1983; 286: 835-838Crossref PubMed Scopus (240) Google Scholar). In 1983, it was not clear which group would be first to succeed in transferring a human embryo into a woman who was the biologic, but not the genetic, mother of her child. Thus, the “race” was on. Just weeks before the press release in Los Angeles, the first birth from an egg fertilized in vitro and transferred to a recipient was reported by the Melbourne group at the Queen Victoria Hospital, and this occurred shortly before the baby reported by Buster et al. was born. Also, importantly, and for the first time, the 25-year old Australian recipient suffered from ovarian failure and was prescribed exogenous hormone replacement therapy to prepare her uterus for embryo implantation (7Lutjen P. Trounson A. Leeton J. Findley J. Wood C. Renou P. The establishment and maintenance of pregnancy using in-vitro fertilization and embryo donation in a patient with primary ovarian failure.Nature. 1984; 307: 174-175Crossref PubMed Scopus (541) Google Scholar). The eggs were harvested from a 29-year old infertile “donor” undergoing IVF treatment who altruistically provided four of her eggs to the recipient after laparoscopic retrieval. However, it should be remembered that although the recipient was successful in achieving pregnancy the donor, sadly, was not. Through the prism of today's standards and regulations, these early clinical trials seem unimaginable. I was a young fellow in reproductive endocrinology working with Drs. Buster and Maria Bustillo at Harbor/UCLA Medical Center in Torrance, California, and I attribute my own intrepid spirit at that time to pure naivete. I have always been thankful to being “at the right place, at the right time,” allowing me to inherit such a novel fellow project. But looking back, the work done by Buster and his associates was bold, innovative, challenging, and risky. Luckily for many, including me, the projects were sustainable, the clinical outcomes were good, and there were no major complications in the donors or the recipients. Even to this day, the embryos we recovered during those years from natural-conception cycles provide useful insights into the biology of human reproduction. Furthermore, the deliberate payment to women in the service of gamete donation proved to be a truly disruptive innovation. The concept was novel and launched a new pathway for providing fertility care that would ultimately reach far beyond the conventional uses imagined in the early 1980s. The field of assisted reproduction was in its infancy in the early 1980s, when most of the clinical techniques used today were unavailable to researchers. It is worth remembering that Louise Brown was only 5 years old when the first oocyte donation baby was born. At that time, there were very few programs performing IVF and even fewer that had achieved successful pregnancies. It is not surprising that the first oocyte donation pregnancy occurred in a program such as that led by Drs. Wood and Trounson. Years before, they had mastered the basic techniques required for IVF success, and they managed infertile patients undergoing treatment who were willing to donate supernumerary oocytes to recipients (8Trounson A. Development of in vitro fertilization in Australia.Fertil Steril. 2018; 110: 19-24Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (4) Google Scholar). The most basic steps of patient recruitment, ovarian stimulation, donor-recipient cycle synchronization, gamete handling, embryo culture, and pregnancy management were yet to be established when their important work was initiated and the research performed. Before the aforementioned human births, Gary Hodgen, Ph.D., had successfully performed oocyte donation in hormonally replaced castrated nonhuman primates at the National Institutes of Health. He had achieved pregnancy success in a small series of rhesus and cynomolgus monkeys (9Hodgen G.D. Surrogate embryo transfer combined with estrogen-progesterone therapy in monkeys. Implantation, gestation, and delivery without ovaries.JAMA. 1983; 250: 2167-2171Crossref PubMed Scopus (115) Google Scholar). Unlike the human trials of oocyte and embryo donation, which were largely performed on ovulatory subjects, Hodgen administered pharmacologic replacement regimens to synchronize the cycles of his donors and recipients. Hodgen's observations provided the necessary proof of concept to the idea that ovarian failure was not a barrier to reproduction. His research laid the groundwork for later human clinical trials that focused on establishing pregnancy in hypogonadal and menopausal women. Throughout most of the 1980s, IVF was surgical and therefore both expensive to perform and invasive in nature. It required that the patient be hospitalized, often for days, and undergo either laparoscopy or laparotomy to retrieve gametes. At that time, IVF was largely inaccessible to the general population, and was restricted to young couples struggling with infertility. The introduction of innovative protocols involving gamete donation filtered slowly through Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), legal reviews, and research committees. These experiments were challenged by peers concerned with ethics, as well as the science underlying the methodology. Under such circumstances it was unthinkable to ask volunteers to donate oocytes unless they too were undergoing surgery. Therefore, most donors were IVF patients themselves. The most basic elements of donor-recipient cycle synchronization, including the choice of prescribed medications and the requisite dosing, were unknown, mandating an empirical approach that led to unreliable results and very few pregnancies (10Rosenwaks Z. Donor eggs: their application in modern technologies.Fertil Steril. 1987; 47: 895-909Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (181) Google Scholar). Ultrasonographic monitoring of cycles was performed with the use of abdominal probes that made accurate visualization of growing follicles difficult. The eggs were harvested with the use of a freehand technique of repeatedly stabbing the visible follicles directly through the cortex, usually with the use of handheld needle aspiration of varying pressure intensity. Finally, the embryo culture systems were crude, including the media used and the incubators necessary to fertilize and culture the conceptus, which at best allowed a 48-hour window to witness embryo growth and development (11Cohen J. Advances in the IVF laboratory. How the embryology laboratory has changed.Fertil Steril. 2018; 110: 189-191Google Scholar). Furthermore, it was necessary to immediately transfer the early-cleavage-stage embryos into the host uterus, because they could not be reliably cryopreserved. It was common at that time to transfer up to five embryos into the uterus of the infertile patient. This was also true when performing oocyte donation, and, to the surprise of many investigators, multiple gestations commonly occurred, the recipients' endometrium proving to be more receptive to embryo implantation than conventional patients undergoing IVF. As a result, complicated pregnancies in recipients of donor oocytes were frequent (12Sauer M.V. Paulson R.J. Macaso T.M. Hernandez M.M. Lobo R.A. Establishment of a nonanonymous donor oocyte program: preliminary experience at the University of Southern California.Fertil Steril. 1989; 52: 433-436Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (56) Google Scholar). In the context of the above-mentioned challenges, uterine lavage, the nonsurgical technique introduced at Harbor/UCLA, was attractive in that it was relatively easy to learn, being similar to placing a uterine sounding device into an endometrial cavity. Anesthesia was unnecessary, and the procedure could be performed in offices outside of the hospital. An expensive embryology laboratory was not required, because the patient was both oocyte donor and early embryo incubator. Only a microscope was needed to scan the recovered uterine lavage fluid along with a tissue-culture incubator, which was used to keep the lavage fluids at body temperature. A single embryologist with a trained eye for spotting the free-floating zygote within the cellular debris of the recovered flush was the only other required personnel. Similar to culture fluids used to lavage out the in vivo embryos from cattle, women were irrigated with a buffered medium that provided the successfully captured zygote a safe environment within which to exist for a few hours while outside the body. Ultimately, the recovered embryo was placed into the uterus of the intended parent, whose menstrual cycle and ovulation had been synchronized to that of the donor. Medications, and hormonal supplements, were not initially prescribed for either the donor or the recipient. The earliest clinical trials at Harbor/UCLA enlisted fertile oocyte donors who received ∼$250 per cycle to participate. They were actually considered, at that time, to be overly compensated as research participants because they were receiving five times more money than a sperm donor would receive for providing gametes for reproductive use. Researchers justified the higher payment citing the necessity for the five visits required of the human subjects to be clinically tracked, to be inseminated, and to undergo uterine lavage. Payment was not rendered as consideration for the potential risk involved in the donors' participation, which included infection and unintended pregnancy. The early donors were parous married women, all in their late 20s or early 30s, a very different demographic from today's highly paid and younger donors, who are typically nonparous and unmarried. By today's standards, the vaginal insemination of untested freshly ejaculated semen seems extraordinarily dangerous, but this work occurred before human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and several other sexually transmitted infections were known to exist. Vaginal insemination of freshly ejaculated sperm was routinely practiced in most fertility centers in the United States using sperm donation at that time. Men enrolled in the clinical trial were serologically screened for syphilis, and their semen was scanned under a light microscope for the presence of white blood cells to ensure that an active infection was not present at the time of the insemination. Interestingly, infectious disease tests were not performed on sexual partners of oocyte donors, and donors were instructed to abstain from intercourse to avoid inadvertent fertilization with their husbands, rather than the intended parents. Despite the simplicity, low cost, and early clinical success, uterine lavage faced many hurdles from the outset. First, it relied on the relatively low fecundity associated with human reproduction. At best, an embryo was recovered from a natural cycle about one-half of the time, and only blastocysts were implanted. But blastocysts appeared in only one-fourth of the recovery cycles (13Sauer M.V. Bustillo M. Rodi I.A. Gorrill M.J. Buster J.E. In vivo blastocyst production and ovum yield among fertile women.Hum Reprod. 1987; 2: 701-703PubMed Google Scholar). It was not obvious in the early days of embryo donation that by 120 hours of incubation, viable human embryos should be at the blastocyst stage, which necessitated placing all recovered embryos, whether they were normally cleaving or not, into the uterus of the intended parent. Therefore, pregnancy rates were low in those early trials, although transferred blastocysts implanted nearly 50% of the time (14Buster J.E. Bustillo M. Rodi I.A. Cohen S.W. Hamilton M. Simon J.A. et al.Biologic and morphologic development of donated human ova recovered by nonsurgical uterine lavage.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985; 153: 211-217Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (169) Google Scholar). In the 1980s, IVF was focused on treating an infertile population typically of young women with tubal disease. Excluded were the populations that we now frequently encounter, including women of advanced reproductive age, patients with male-factor infertility, and patients with diminished ovarian reserve. Therefore, parous oocyte donors were recruited for uterine lavage because in vivo fertilization and embryo recovery required the reproductive tract to be normal and functional. The early oocyte donors were selected only after completing their childbearing. Coinciding with these events, significant improvements in technology evolved that profoundly affected the field of assisted reproduction and directly affected the practice of oocyte and embryo donation. Perhaps most important was the introduction of transvaginal ultrasound, which improved visualization of the ovaries and permitted guided needle aspiration for oocyte retrieval (15Gleicher N. Friberg J. Fullan N. Giglia R.V. Mayden K. Kesky T. et al.Egg retrieval for in vitro fertilization by sonographically controlled vaginal culdocentesis.Lancet. 1983; 27: 508-509Abstract Scopus (84) Google Scholar, 16Wikland M. Role of ultrasound in in vitro fertilization.Fertil Steril. 2018; 110: 274-277Google Scholar). Soon thereafter, laparoscopic surgery, which had been routinely used for oocyte harvest, was abandoned in favor of the transvaginal ultrasound–guided approach, a nonsurgical technique easily learned and performed by clinicians and one requiring only mild sedation. This refinement greatly enhanced the safety and efficiency of the retrieval method, reduced invasiveness and expense, and made it possible to move IVF from an encumbered hospital-based practice to the outpatient setting. Transforming IVF from a surgical to a nonsurgical procedure had an immediate impact on the recruitment of egg donors. Women were more willing to undergo a 10–20-minute nonsurgical outpatient procedure that was relatively painless and without significant postoperative recovery. The nonsurgical method of oocyte retrieval was also influential in facilitating IRB approval for early clinical trials by reviewers who were concerned about subjecting research donors to the procedural risks that accompany surgery. Uterine lavage languished under these circumstances. First, the dangers of HIV and its sexual transmission became apparent during the late 1980s, and the safety of inseminating egg donors with semen from intended parents was highly problematic without effective screening. Second, in hopes of improving the low efficiency of embryo recovery from natural cycles, ovarian stimulation of donors was attempted (17Sauer M.V. Anderson R.E. Paulson R.J. Superovulation of ovum donors undergoing uterine lavage.Fertil Steril. 1989; 51: 131-134Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar, 18Carson S.A. Smith A.L. Scoggan J.L. Buster J.E. Superovulation fails to increase human blastocyst yield after uterine lavage.Prenat Diagn. 1991; 11: 513-522Crossref PubMed Scopus (11) Google Scholar). Unfortunately, in contrast to the success previously witnessed in the cattle industry, such efforts did not enhance embryo recovery, and, in fact, several retained pregnancies occurred in the research subjects. At that time, there were no reliable medicinal measures available to block implantation of nonrecovered blastocysts, and out of concern for safety the research was halted. As a result, by the early 1990s, clinical trials of uterine lavage were abandoned in favor of the safer and more efficient IVF approach. Simultaneous improvements in prescribed medications and their delivery, as well as improvements in embryo culture, led to reliable rates of gamete recovery and embryo production in programs performing IVF (19Fauser B.C.J.M. Tarlatzis B.C. Progress in ovarian stimulation for IVF over time.Fertil Steril. 2018; 110: 263-266Google Scholar). Navot and colleagues described regimens of hormone replacement to mimic the natural cycle (20Navot D. Laufer N. Kopolovic J. Rabinowitz R. Birkenfeld A. Lewin A. et al.Artificially induced endometrial cycles and establishment of pregnancies in the absence of ovaries.N Engl J Med. 1986; 314: 806-811Crossref PubMed Scopus (260) Google Scholar). This would prove to be useful for patients undergoing fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer and laid the framework for the “window of implantation” concept which we still espouse as critical for the timing of embryo transfer (21Navot D. Scott R.T. Droesch K. Veeck L. Liu H.C. Rosenwaks Z. The window of embryo transfer and the efficiency of human conception in vitro.Fertil Steril. 1991; 55: 114-118Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (237) Google Scholar). By mid-decade, ovarian stimulation protocols regularly produced supernumerary embryos for transfer. Importantly, advancements in cryobiology permitted the freezing of early-cleavage-stage embryos. This alleviated some of the concerns related to the supernumerary embryos commonly produced in oocyte donation attempts by reducing the need to transfer large numbers of fresh embryos that in the past would have been discarded, while also allowing patients multiple attempts at pregnancy from one retrieval cycle. These developments benefited the IVF patient, but at the same time they made it increasingly difficult to obtain spare eggs that could be diverted for use in gamete donation. In 1987, I joined the faculty at the University of Southern California (USC). A relatively new IVF program located at the California Medical Center in Los Angeles had been initiated there. It was led by Drs. Richard Paulson and Rogerio Lobo, and like others they struggled to establish an oocyte donation program. I was fortunate to convince a number of the embryo donors that I had been working with for several years at Harbor/UCLA to become egg donors at USC. It was with the help of these dedicated women that we launched our initial clinical research efforts there. Others had established small oocyte donation programs, typically comprising volunteers donating altruistically or patients willing to part with a fraction of their eggs obtained during IVF (22Quigley M.M. Collins R.L. Schover L.R. Establishment of an oocyte donor program.Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1991; 626: 445-451Google Scholar). I believe what set the USC program apart from the rest related to our innovation and transparency. This included increasing the payments to our donors from small sums normally given research subjects to remuneration that better reflected the time spent, risks taken, and recovery required from ovarian stimulation and oocyte retrieval. Importantly, these payments were deliberate and not cloaked in the guise of a clinical trial. We were fortunate in having an IRB that permitted this approach, which greatly facilitated the growth of our program. We actively recruited donors with the use of posted advertisements on medical-center bulletin boards and by word of mouth. Eventually, we also included print ads in newspapers that were popular with young adults. Once at USC, I modified the protocols I had used for lavage and embryo donation to include the IVF stimulation protocols used with conventional patients, and we began a long series of successful clinical trials that challenged many conventional standards. Our focus was to address the infertility needs of a wide variety of patients who were considered to be untreatable (23Sauer M.V. Paulson R.J. Human oocyte and pre-embryo donation: An evolving method for the treatment of female infertility.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1990; 163: 1421-1424Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (44) Google Scholar). There were many published “firsts.” We provided eggs to older and older recipients, even beyond the age of natural menopause; accepted cancer survivors, including patients with breast cancer and others who had received bone marrow transplants; extended care to women with gonadal dysgenesis; treated single women and openly gay patients with donor gametes and embryos; and provided transgenerational egg donation from daughter to mother (24Sauer M.V. Paulson R.J. Lobo R.A. A preliminary report on oocyte donation extending reproductive potential to women over 40.N Engl J Med. 1990; 323: 1157-1160Crossref PubMed Scopus (194) Google Scholar, 25Sauer M.V. Paulson R.J. Lobo R.A. Reversing the natural decline in human fertility: an extended clinical trial of oocyte donation to women of advanced reproductive age.JAMA. 1992; 268: 1270-1275Crossref PubMed Scopus (192) Google Scholar, 26Sauer M.V. Paulson R.J. Lobo R.A. Pregnancy after age 50: applying oocyte donation to women following natural menopause.Lancet. 1993; 341: 321-323Abstract PubMed Scopus (147) Google Scholar, 27Lee S. Ghalie R. Kaiser H. Sauer M.V. Successful pregnancy in a bone marrow transplant recipient following oocyte donation.J Assist Reprod Genet. 1995; 12: 294-296Crossref PubMed Scopus (14) Google Scholar, 28Sauer M.V. Lobo R.A. Paulson R.J. Successful twin gestation following donor embryo transfer to a patient with XY gonadal dysgenesis.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1989; 161: 380-381Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (39) Google Scholar, 29Sauer M.V. Paulson R.J. Francis M.M. Macaso T.M. Lobo R.A. Preimplantation adoption: establishing pregnancy using donated oocytes and sperm.Hum Reprod. 1995; 10: 1419-1422Google Scholar, 30Sauer M.V. Intergenerational gamete donation may be clinically challenging but it is ethically defensible.Fertil Steril. 2018; 109: 250-251Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1) Google Scholar). Often, events were both celebrated and condemned by the popular press, and to this day controversy still surrounds many of these now established practices. All of our research projects were presented at scientific meetings, where, again, we experienced both criticism and praise. Scientific abstracts were followed by peer-reviewed publications. We felt that it was vitally important to publicize the work and promote the concepts, and we were active in doing both. As already mentioned, the research being done at USC was not universally well received, even among academic peers. I remember lecturing at a postgraduate course of the American Fertility Society held in Hawaii in 1993 where I was asked to speak on “menopausal pregnancy.” My talk followed a presentation by Dr. Arthur “Cap” Haney, who at the time was the division chief of reproductive endocrinology at Duke University. He introduced me to the audience after showing a slide that his fellow had supplied him in which a calculation was made projecting how many women in their 50s would deliver a baby before one would die trying! At the time I thought he was rather crass, but looking back, his prediction actually turned out to be quite accurate and appropriate. I have witnessed many antenatal complications over the years in pregnant women of advanced reproductive age, including one death, and I think that older recipients represent a unique high-risk subset of obstetrical patients (31Kort D.H. Gosselin J.T. Choi J.M. Thornton M.H. Cleary-Goldman J. Sauer M.V. Pregnancy in women 50 years and older: Reducing risks through careful antenatal screening.Am J Perinatol. 2012; 29: 245-250Crossref PubMed Scopus (51) Google Scholar). The complications, experienced by both oocyte donors and recipients, have also been published to best describe the overall experience of oocyte and embryo donation (32Sauer M.V. Defining the incidence of serious complications experienced by oocyte donors: a review of 1000 cases.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 184: 277-278Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (59) Google Scholar, 33Sauer M.V. Reproduction at an advanced maternal age and maternal health.Fertil Steril. 2015; 103: 1136-1143Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (180) Google Scholar). In sum, risks were assumed by all who participated. Over the course of the next 25 years, the methodology underlying IVF continued to progress and improve, but, in general, it has remained highly complex. More than six million children have been born as a result of assisted reproductive technologies, and success has been achieved all over the world. Thousands of children have been born as a result of oocyte donation. Largely owing to the application of oocyte donation to older recipients, a steady rise in cases occurred from 1990 onward (33Sauer M.V. Reproduction at an advanced maternal age and maternal health.Fertil Steril. 2015; 103: 1136-1143Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (180) Google Scholar). Roughly 10% of cases reported annually to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology are a result of oocyte or embryo donation. Success rates have been consistently high, with roughly one-half of all recipients delivering babies after an embryo transfer, regardless of age or circumstance (34Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology2015 assisted reproductive technology national summary report. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta2017Google Scholar). Oocyte donation has evolved away from the academic centers. Now considered to be standard practice as a treatment option for infertile pati" @default.
W2899427786 created "2018-11-09" @default.
W2899427786 creator A5036359215 @default.
W2899427786 date "2018-11-01" @default.
W2899427786 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
W2899427786 title "Revisiting the early days of oocyte and embryo donation: relevance to contemporary clinical practice" @default.
W2899427786 cites W1676616337 @default.
W2899427786 cites W1978024915 @default.
W2899427786 cites W1989870922 @default.
W2899427786 cites W1995768127 @default.
W2899427786 cites W1996947686 @default.
W2899427786 cites W1996968969 @default.
W2899427786 cites W1998064763 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2001813843 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2003063930 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2006893131 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2011910185 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2027669322 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2032372426 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2038685712 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2067614006 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2068149425 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2070108578 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2075473071 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2077952338 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2078450832 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2080332455 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2087034915 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2087145598 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2092328975 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2095557559 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2096665061 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2115208391 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2118390096 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2123942514 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2135800024 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2159846996 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2168637345 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2248881588 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2280592538 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2300971307 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2341351566 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2407256950 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2417258054 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2467442632 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2541138808 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2781892235 @default.
W2899427786 cites W2810580102 @default.
W2899427786 cites W4248449159 @default.
W2899427786 cites W4254327063 @default.
W2899427786 cites W4297913536 @default.
W2899427786 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.09.005" @default.
W2899427786 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30396565" @default.
W2899427786 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
W2899427786 type Work @default.
W2899427786 sameAs 2899427786 @default.
W2899427786 citedByCount "8" @default.
W2899427786 countsByYear W28994277862018 @default.
W2899427786 countsByYear W28994277862020 @default.
W2899427786 countsByYear W28994277862021 @default.
W2899427786 countsByYear W28994277862022 @default.
W2899427786 countsByYear W28994277862023 @default.
W2899427786 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
W2899427786 hasAuthorship W2899427786A5036359215 @default.
W2899427786 hasBestOaLocation W28994277861 @default.
W2899427786 hasConcept C131872663 @default.
W2899427786 hasConcept C158154518 @default.
W2899427786 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
W2899427786 hasConcept C196843134 @default.
W2899427786 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
W2899427786 hasConcept C2775933685 @default.
W2899427786 hasConcept C2776690073 @default.
W2899427786 hasConcept C2779974597 @default.
W2899427786 hasConcept C29456083 @default.
W2899427786 hasConcept C3018046586 @default.
W2899427786 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
W2899427786 hasConcept C54355233 @default.
W2899427786 hasConcept C56181019 @default.
W2899427786 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
W2899427786 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
W2899427786 hasConceptScore W2899427786C131872663 @default.
W2899427786 hasConceptScore W2899427786C158154518 @default.
W2899427786 hasConceptScore W2899427786C17744445 @default.
W2899427786 hasConceptScore W2899427786C196843134 @default.
W2899427786 hasConceptScore W2899427786C199539241 @default.
W2899427786 hasConceptScore W2899427786C2775933685 @default.
W2899427786 hasConceptScore W2899427786C2776690073 @default.
W2899427786 hasConceptScore W2899427786C2779974597 @default.
W2899427786 hasConceptScore W2899427786C29456083 @default.
W2899427786 hasConceptScore W2899427786C3018046586 @default.
W2899427786 hasConceptScore W2899427786C512399662 @default.
W2899427786 hasConceptScore W2899427786C54355233 @default.
W2899427786 hasConceptScore W2899427786C56181019 @default.
W2899427786 hasConceptScore W2899427786C71924100 @default.
W2899427786 hasConceptScore W2899427786C86803240 @default.
W2899427786 hasIssue "6" @default.
W2899427786 hasLocation W28994277861 @default.
W2899427786 hasLocation W28994277862 @default.