SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences / 2019 / Cilt: 49 - Sayı: 4

Ovarian stimulation modalities in poor responders

Zehra Sema ÖZKAN
Pages
959–962
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Thisreview article presents the encouraging methods applied for POR cases to improve cycle outcome.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Abstract: In a group of IVF/ICSI cycles, despite the appropriate ovarian stimulation, the number of oocytes collected is below theexpected value.
📊
Key Findings & Data:POR brings the risk of cycle cancellationwith an estimated rate of 20%.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Thisreview article presents the encouraging methods applied for POR cases to improve cycle outcome.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Abstract: In a group of IVF/ICSI cycles, despite the appropriate ovarian stimulation, the number of oocytes collected is below theexpected value. This condition is defined as poor ovarian response (POR) to stimulation. POR brings the risk of cycle cancellationwith an estimated rate of 20%. Infertility experts are trying to improve cycle outcomes of POR cases with multiple modifications. Thisreview article will present the latest modifications on the management of POR. The studies performed for improving cycle outcomein POR cases were evaluated and their notable results were presented. The first intervention among infertility specialists is to makea standard definition for POR. The BOLOGNA criteria and the subsequent POSEIDON group definitions are the latest updates inPOR management. GnRH antagonists, estradiol priming, double stimulation, letrozole administration, DHEA, and herbal therapysupplementations are the recent modifications done to improve oocyte retrieval and subsequent embryo transfer for POR cases. Thisreview article presents the encouraging methods applied for POR cases to improve cycle outcome.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZKAN, Z. S. (2022). Ovarian stimulation modalities in poor responders. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, Cilt: 49 - Sayı: 4, 959–962. https://ajindex.com/articles/610158

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Ulug U, Ben-Shlomo I, Turan E, Erden HF, Akman MA et al. Conception rates following assisted reproduction in poor responder patients: a retrospective study in 300 consecutive cycles. Reprod Biomed Online. 2003;6(4):439-443. doi:10.1016/ S1472-6483(10)62164-5
  2. Timeva T, Milachich T, Antonova I, Arabaji T, Shterev A et al. Correlation between number of retrieved oocytes and pregnancy rate after in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm infection. Scientific World Journal. 2006;6:686-690. doi:10.1100/tsw.2006.145
  3. Merviel P, Cabry-Goubet R, Lourdel E, Devaux A, BelhadriMansouri N, et al. Comparative prospective study of 2 ovarian stimulation protocols in poor responders: effect on implantation rate and ongoing pregnancy. Reprod Health. 2015;12:52. doi: 10.1186/s12978-015-0039-2
  4. Oudendijk JF, Yarde F, Eijkemans MJ, Broekmans FJ, Broer SL. The poor responder in IVF: is the prognosis always poor ?: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18(1):1-11. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmr037
  5. Keay SD. Poor ovarian response to gonadotrophin stimulation the role of adjuvant treatments. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2002;5(1):46-52
  6. Ubaldi F, Vaiarelli A, D’Anna R, Rienzi L. Management of poor responders in IVF: is there anything new? Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:352098. doi: 10.1155/2014/352098
  7. Giovanale V, Pulcinelli FM, Ralli E, Primiero FM, Caserta D. Poor responders in IVF: an update in therapy. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2015;31(4):253-257. doi: 10.3109/09513590.2014.987228
  8. Ferraretti AP, Gianaroli L.The Bologna criteria for the definition of poor ovarian responders: is there a need for revision? Hum Reprod. 2014;29(9):1842-1845. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deu139
  9. Su HI. Measuring ovarian function in young cancer survivors. Minerva Endocrinol. 2010;35(4):259-270
  10. Papathanasiou A. Implementing the ESHRE ‘poor responder’ criteria in research studies: methodologicalimplications. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(9):1835-1838. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deu135 11. Frydman R. Poor responders: still a problem. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(5):1057. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.09.051
  11. Drakopoulos P, Blockeel C, Stoop D, Camus M, de Vos M et al. Conventional ovarian stimulation and single embryo transfer for IVF/ICSI. How many oocytes do we need to maximize cumulative live birth rates after utilization of all fresh and frozen embryos? Hum Reprod. 2016;31(2):370-376. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dev316
  12. Poseidon Group (Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing IndividualizeD Oocyte Number), Alvi