Complications related to in vitro reproductive techniques support the implementation of natural procreative technologies.
Journal
Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis
ISSN: 2531-6745
Titre abrégé: Acta Biomed
Pays: Italy
ID NLM: 101295064
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 11 2020
09 11 2020
Historique:
received:
25
08
2020
accepted:
21
09
2020
entrez:
10
11
2020
pubmed:
11
11
2020
medline:
29
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Infertility affects ~20% of the couples in the world. Assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) are currently the most common treatment option for infertility. Nevertheless, ARTs may be associated with complications for mothers and/or offspring. Natural procreative technology (NaProTechnology) is a natural treatment which minimizes these risks by seeking to identify the causes of infertility to enable better treatments. This narrative review summarizes the complications related to ARTs and clarifies how the NaProTechnology approach can help ARTs to achieve better results or be used in alternative to ARTs. Data in the literature indicate that NaProTechnology is a natural approach for treating infertility. The percentage of live births obtained by NaProTechnology is similar to that of ARTs. An extensive search for the genetic defects causing infertility or subfertility through genetic testing can help both ARTs and NaProTechnology to achieve successful pregnancies. By discovering the underlying causes of infertility, genetic tests enable better family counseling, like the implications of transmitting risk- and disease-alleles to future generations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIM
Infertility affects ~20% of the couples in the world. Assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) are currently the most common treatment option for infertility. Nevertheless, ARTs may be associated with complications for mothers and/or offspring. Natural procreative technology (NaProTechnology) is a natural treatment which minimizes these risks by seeking to identify the causes of infertility to enable better treatments. This narrative review summarizes the complications related to ARTs and clarifies how the NaProTechnology approach can help ARTs to achieve better results or be used in alternative to ARTs.
METHODS
Data in the literature indicate that NaProTechnology is a natural approach for treating infertility.
RESULTS
The percentage of live births obtained by NaProTechnology is similar to that of ARTs.
CONCLUSIONS
An extensive search for the genetic defects causing infertility or subfertility through genetic testing can help both ARTs and NaProTechnology to achieve successful pregnancies. By discovering the underlying causes of infertility, genetic tests enable better family counseling, like the implications of transmitting risk- and disease-alleles to future generations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33170179
doi: 10.23750/abm.v91i13-S.10525
pmc: PMC8023144
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2020018Références
Fertil Steril. 2018 Nov;110(6):1067-1080
pubmed: 30396551
Lancet Glob Health. 2014 Jun;2(6):e323-33
pubmed: 25103301
J Am Board Fam Med. 2008 Sep-Oct;21(5):375-84
pubmed: 18772291
Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Jan;125(1):70-78
pubmed: 25560107
Hum Reprod. 1995 Oct;10 Suppl 1:128-37
pubmed: 8592029
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jun;28(3):172-7
pubmed: 27054511
Fertil Steril. 2007 Oct;88(4):915-24
pubmed: 17601602
Int J Surg Case Rep. 2019;59:50-53
pubmed: 31103953
Semin Reprod Med. 2001 Sep;19(3):239-49
pubmed: 11679905
Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Nov;106(5 Pt 1):1039-45
pubmed: 16260523
Lancet. 1990 Dec 22-29;336(8730):1577
pubmed: 1979385
Contraception. 1999 Dec;60(6):357-60
pubmed: 10715371
Lancet. 1991 Oct 12;338(8772):955
pubmed: 1681306
Fertil Steril. 2015 Nov;104(5):1286-93
pubmed: 26354092
Br J Cancer. 1999 Jun;80(7):1092-7
pubmed: 10362122
N Engl J Med. 1982 Sep 23;307(13):820
pubmed: 6287262
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2009 Sep;62(9):e298-300
pubmed: 18456585
Lancet. 1972 Feb 5;1(7745):282-4
pubmed: 4109930
J Med Genet. 2003 Feb;40(2):87-95
pubmed: 12566516
Hum Reprod. 2001 Mar;16(3):504-9
pubmed: 11228220
N Engl J Med. 2009 Jan 15;360(3):236-43
pubmed: 19144939
Obstet Gynecol Int. 2015;2015:514159
pubmed: 26074966
Fertil Steril. 2012 Jun;97(6):1331-7.e1-4
pubmed: 22480819
Linacre Q. 2012 Feb;79(1):57-72
pubmed: 30082960
Am J Hum Genet. 2003 Jan;72(1):156-60
pubmed: 12439823
Fertil Steril. 2013 Dec;100(6):1615-21.e1-10
pubmed: 24083875
MMWR Surveill Summ. 2019 Apr 26;68(4):1-23
pubmed: 31022165
Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Mar;103(3):551-63
pubmed: 14990421
Hum Reprod. 2010 May;25(5):1312-6
pubmed: 20179321
Genet Med. 2017 May;19(5):583-592
pubmed: 28492530
Front Med (Lausanne). 2018 Jul 31;5:210
pubmed: 30109231
Ann Endocrinol (Paris). 2010 May;71(3):237-8
pubmed: 20362968
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019 Mar;36(3):363-369
pubmed: 30421342
PLoS Med. 2012;9(12):e1001356
pubmed: 23271957
Reprod Biomed Online. 2017 May;34(5):480-485
pubmed: 28473127
Am J Hum Genet. 2004 Apr;74(4):599-609
pubmed: 14991528
Fertil Steril. 2018 Feb;109(2):213-220
pubmed: 29395096
Hum Reprod Update. 2009 Jul-Aug;15(4):391-408
pubmed: 19380415
Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Spring;1(2):69-76
pubmed: 18769664
Maturitas. 2003 Oct 20;46(2):91-2
pubmed: 14559371
Curr Genet Med Rep. 2013 Dec 1;1(4):
pubmed: 24416713
Hum Reprod. 2002 Aug;17(8):2089-95
pubmed: 12151442
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2006 Mar;28(3):220-233
pubmed: 16650361
Hum Reprod. 2012 Sep;27(9):2619-26
pubmed: 22791752
Therapie. 2015 Sep-Oct;70(5):433-41
pubmed: 26071143
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2017 Oct;44:90-104
pubmed: 28844405
Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2013 Jun;59(3):124-30
pubmed: 23294443
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Apr;45(4):377-93
pubmed: 25302750
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Mar;218(3):294-314.e2
pubmed: 29248470
Eur J Hum Genet. 2018 Jan;26(1):12-33
pubmed: 29199274
BMJ. 2011 Jan 27;342:d436
pubmed: 21273271
Reprod Toxicol. 2017 Mar;68:72-84
pubmed: 27474254
Clin Epigenetics. 2019 Feb 7;11(1):21
pubmed: 30732658
Biometrics. 2005 Mar;61(1):126-33
pubmed: 15737085