Reproductive Health-Oriented Development in Assisted Reproductive Technologies

HU Peiran, PAN Jiexue, LIU Xinmei, HUANG Hefeng

Abstract

Assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) are core components of the field of reproductive medicine, encompassing multiple pivotal stages of early development from gamete maturation and fertilization to embryo development. Against the backdrop of a deteriorating trend of global decline in fertility rates, patients with infertility problems increasingly turn to ARTs to realize their dreams of parenthood. However, concomitant with this trend is a growing apprehension regarding the potential adverse effects of ARTs. Herein, we endeavor to discuss several common ARTs procedures utilized in clinical settings and the relevant cutting-edge advancements. The ARTs discussed in the article include in vitro fertilization (IVF), intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), biphasic in vitro maturation (biphasic IVM), frozen embryo transfer (FET), preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), non-invasive PGT (niPGT), etc. In addition, we reevaluated their roles within the broader context of assisted reproduction aimed at promoting reproductive health. Additionally, we will delve into the impact of ARTs on the reproductive health of the offspring. By prioritizing the reproductive well-being of both patients and their offspring, the ongoing development and improvement of ARTs to enhance their efficacy and safety will contribute significantly to the advancement of human reproductive health.

 

Keywords: Assisted reproductive technology, Reproductive health, in vitro fertilization, Intracytoplasmic sperm injection, Preimplantation genetic testing, Review

 

Full Text:

PDF


References


World health organization sexual and reproductive health and research. Infertility prevalence estimates, 1990–2021. World Health Organization.(2023-01-04)[2023-04-03]. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/978920068315.

ZHOU Z, ZHENG D, WU H, et al. Epidemiology of infertility in China: a population-based study. BJOG, 2018, 125(4): 432–441. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.14966.

ZHOU Z, CHEN L, WU H, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Beijing, 2013–2015. Reprod Biomed Online, 2018, 37(5): 521–532. doi: 10. 1016/j.rbmo.2018.08.002.

CORABIAN P, HAILEY D. The efficacy and adverse effects of in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 1999, 15(1): 66–85. doi: 10.1017/s0266462399015172.

JACKSON R A, GIBSON K A, WU Y W, et al. Perinatal outcomes in singletons following in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis. Obstetr Gynecol, 2004, 103(3): 551–563. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000114989.84822. 51.

WISBORG K, INGERSLEV H J, HENRIKSEN T B. IVF and stillbirth: a prospective follow-up study. Hum Reprod, 2010, 25(5): 1312–1316. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deq023.

HART R, NORMAN R J. The longer-term health outcomes for children born as a result of IVF treatment: Part Ⅰ--General health outcomes. Hum Reprod Update, 2013, 19(3): 232–243. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dms062.

QIN J, LIU X, SHENG X, et al. Assisted reproductive technology and the risk of pregnancy-related complications and adverse pregnancy outcomes in singleton pregnancies: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Fertil Steril, 2016, 105: 73–85.e1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.09.007.

HAYASHI M, NAKAI A, SATOH S, et al. Adverse obstetric and perinatal outcomes of singleton pregnancies may be related to maternal factors associated with infertility rather than the type of assisted reproductive technology procedure used. Fertil Steril, 2012, 98(4): 922–928. doi: 10. 1016/j.fertnstert.2012.05.049.

JAQUES A M, AMOR D J, BAKER H W G, et al. Adverse obstetric and perinatal outcomes in subfertile women conceiving without assisted reproductive technologies. Fertil Steril, 2010, 94(7): 2674–2679. doi: 10. 1016/j.fertnstert.2010.02.043.

THOMSON F , SHANBHAG S , TEMPLETON A , et al. Obstetric outcome in women with subfertility. BJOG, 2005, 112(5): 632–637. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00489.x.

RUBINO P, VIGANÒ P, LUDDI A, et al. The ICSI procedure from past to future: a systematic review of the more controversial aspects. Hum Reprod Update, 2016, 22(2): 194–227. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmv050.

WANG Y, LI R, YANG R, et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection versus conventional in-vitro fertilisation for couples with infertility with non-severe male factor: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 2024, 403(10430): 924–934. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)02416-9.

DATTA A K, MAHESHWARI A, FELIX N, et al. Mild versus conventional ovarian stimulation for IVF in poor, normal and hyper-responders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update, 2021, 27(2): 229–253. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmaa035.

GILCHRIST R B, HO T M, De VOS M, et al. A fresh start for IVM: capacitating the oocyte for development using pre-IVM. Hum Reprod Update, 2024, 30(1): 3–25. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmad023.

GARCIA BARROS R, LODDE V, FRANCIOSI F, et al. A refined culture system of oocytes from early antral follicles promotes oocyte maturation and embryo development in cattle. Reproduction, 2023, 165(2): 221–233. doi: 10.1530/REP-22-0277.

SUN C F, SHENG J Z, HUANG H F. A mutual comparison of pregnancy outcomes between different conception modes: a propensity score matching based retrospective cohort study. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne), 2024, 15: 1351991. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2024.1351991.

TROUNSON A, MOHR L . Human pregnancy following cryopreservation, thawing and transfer of an eight-cell embryo. Nature, 1983, 305(5936): 707–709. doi: 10.1038/305707a0.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.