Keywords
uterus
surrogacy
uterus transplantation
ectogenesis
Abstract
MOTHERHOOD OF WOMEN WITH UTERINE FACTOR INFERTILITY
Aim. The aim of this paper is to present alternative ways for women with uterine factor infertility to achieve motherhood.
Material and methods. Analysis of professional literature including the issues of surrogate motherhood, uterine transplantation and ectogenesis.
Results. The infertility caused by uterine factor aff ects 3-5% of women in the world. There are also women who wish to conceive a baby out of their own genetic material, despite having a structurally abnormal uterus or lacking this organ altogether. Due to considerable advancements in reproductive medicine, the needs of such women can now be met via extracorporeal fertilisation and embryo implantation into the uterine cavity of another woman – surrogacy, or in special cases, via uterus transplantation. Another controversial concept is ectogenesis, i.e. technology which would allow for the growth of human embryos outside the mother’s body in an artifi cial uterus. The surrogate is considered when treatment and other reproduction methods have not worked well. This procedure is legal and accepted in some countries, while in others it is strongly opposed.
Conclusions. There is growing demand for accurate and modern diagnostic and therapeutic methods allowing for successful reproduction. The proposed solutions may seem unreal, but the results of the research carried out to embody them seem to be promising.
References
1. Kolk M, Cownden D, Enquist M. Correlations in fertility across generations: can low fertility persist? Proc. Biol. Sci. 2014; 281(1779): 2013-2561.
2. Lindsay TJ, Vitrikas KR. Evaluation and treatment of infertility. Am. Fam. Physician. 2015; 91(5): 308-314.
3. Dow K. ‘The men who made the breakthrough’: How the British press represented Patrick Steptoe and Robert Edwards in 1978. Reprod. Bio. Med. Soc. Online. 2017; 4: 59-67.
4. Eskew AM, Jungheim ES. A History of Developments to Improve in vitro Fertilization. Mo. Med. 2017; 114(3): 156-159.
5. Hens K, Dondorp WJ, Geraedts JPM, et al. Comprehensive embryo testing. Experts’ opinions regarding future directions: An expert panel study on comprehensive embryo testing. Hum. Reprod. 2013; 28(5): 1418–1425.
6. Rechberger T, Kulik-Rechberger B. Congenital anomalies of the female reproductive tract – diagnosis and management. Ginekol. Pol. 2011; 82: 137-145.
7. Gruszka M, Wilczyński J, Nowakowska D. Prevalence of uterine malformations and their impact on fertility. Ginekol. Pol. 2012; 83: 517-521.
8. Brännström M, Johannesson L, Dahm-Kähler P, et al. First clinical uterus transplantation trial: a six-month report. Fertil. Steril. 2014; 101(5): 1228-1236. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.02.024.
9. Buchholz T. Was treibt unsere Patienten ins Ausland? Familienplanung mithilfe der Reproduktionsmedizin. Der Gynäkologe. 2017; 50(6): 403-408.
10. Abrao MS, Muzii L, Marana R. Anatomical causes of female infertility and their management. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2013; 123(2): S18-24. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.09.008.
11. Wdowiak A, Kot K, Zybała M, et al. Infertility treatment by intrauterine insemination in a woman with uterus didelphys – case report. Eur. J. Med. Technol. 2018; 4(21): 27-32.
12. Tinelli A, Sparic R, Kadija S, et al. Myomas: anatomy and related issues. Minerva Ginecol. 2016; 68(3): 261-273.
13. Vlahos NF, Theodoridis TD, Partsinevelos GA. Myomas and Adenomyosis: Impact on Reproductive Outcome. Biomed. Res. Int. 2017; 2017: 5926470. doi: 10.1155/2017/5926470.
14. Jacquinet A, Millar D, Lehman A. Etiologies of uterine malformations. Am. J. Med. Genet. Part A. 2016; 170: 2141-2172. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.37775.
15. Fontana L, Gentilin B, Fedele L, et al. Genetics of Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser (MRKH) syndrome. Clin. Genet. 2017; 91: 233-246. doi:10.1111/cge.12883.
16. Backhouse B, Hanna C, Robevska G, et al. Identification of Candidate Genes for Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser Syndrome Using Genomic Approaches. Sex Dev. 2018 Dec 1. doi: 10.1159/000494896.
17. Simopoulou M, Sfakianoudis K, Tsioulou P, et al. Risks in Surrogacy Considering the Embryo: From the Preimplantation to the Gestational and Neonatal Period. Biomed Tes. Int. 2018: 6287507.
18. Lebensztejn MA. Macierzyństwo zastępcze – problemy etyczne i prawne. Miscellanea Historico-Iuridica 2014; 13(2): 299-315.
19. Ustawa z 25 lutego 1964 r. – Kodeks rodzinny i opiekuńczy (Dz. U. nr 9, poz. 59 z późn. zm.). Available online: http://prawo.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU19640090059 (access: 2018.12.18).
20. Casella C, Capasso E, Terracciano L, et al. Ethical and Legal Issues in Gestational Surrogacy. Open Med (Wars). 2018; 13: 119-121.
21. Bronwyn P, Rakhi G. Regulation of surrogacy in India: whenceforth now? BMJ. Glob. Health. 2018; 3(5): e000986.
22. Johannesson L, Enskog A. Experimental uterus transplantation. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2014; 28: 1198-1210.
23. Silva AFG, Carvalho LFP. A meta-analysis on uterine transplantation: Redefining the limits of reproductive surgery. Rev. Ass. Méd. Bras. 2016; 62(5): 474-477.
24. Brännström M, Johannesson L, Bokström H, et al. Livebirth after uterus transplantation. Lancet. 2015; 385: 607-616.
25. Ejzenberg D, Andraus W, Baratelli Carelli Mendes LR, et al. Livebirth after uterus transplantation from a deceased donor in a recipient with uterine infertility. Lancet. 2019; 22, 392(10165): 2697-2704. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31766-5.
26. Tzakis AG. The First Live Birth Subsequent to Uterus Transplantation. Transplantation. 2015; 99(1): 8-9. doi: 10.1097/TP.0000000000000564.
27. Zaami S, Marinelli E, Di Luca NM, et al. Ethical and medico-legal remarks on uterus transplantation: may it solve uterine factor infertility? Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2017; 21: 5290-5296.
28. Robertson JA. Other women’s wombs: uterus transplants and gestational surrogacy. J. Law. Biosci. 2016; 3(1): 68-86. doi: 10.1093/jlb/lsw011.
29. Lefkowitz A, Edwards M, Balayla J. The Montreal criteria for the ethical feasibility of uterine transplantation. Transplant. International. 2012; 25(4): 439-447.
30. Bulletti C, Palagiano A, Pace C, et al. The artificial womb. Ann. NY. Acad. Sci. 2011; 1221: 124-128.
31. Unno N, Kuwabara Y, Okai T, et al. Development of an Artificial Placenta: Survival of Isolated Goat Fetuses for Three Weeks with Umbilical Arteriovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation. Artificial Organs. 1993; 17: 996-1003.
32. Partridge EA, Davey MG, Hornick MA, et al. An extra-uterine system to physiologically support the extreme premature lamb. Nat. Commun. 2017; 8: 15112.
33. Gray BW, El‐Sabbagh A, Rojas‐Pena A, et al. Development of an artificial placenta IV: 24 hour venovenous extracorporeal life support in premature lambs. ASAIO J. 2012; 58: 148-154.
34. Mychaliska GB. The artificial placenta: Is clinical translation next? Pediatr. Pulmonol. 2016; 51(6): 557-559.
35. Wdowiak A, Filip M, Zuzak T, et al. Ectogenesis. Eur. J. Med. Technol. 2014; 3(4): 1-5.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2021 Authors