In the normal menstrual cycle, the egg develops into a follicular cyst or for a period of two weeks in response to gonadotropins FSH and LH hormones that a woman produces. Follicle increases the diameter of about 2 mm to about 20 mm during this period. Meanwhile, the whole egg cells multiply and produce estrogen. sonographic evaluations are performed periodically to monitor follicle growth and blood tests are performed to monitor the levels of estrogen and other hormonal evaluations. The egg is fixed to the wall of the follicle up to amounts of LH (or cycles) of HCG medical induced enzymes which release the egg so that the wall is free floating in the liquid by increasing the follicle.
Then you can leave the follicle after LH also induces enzymes to create a hole in the wall of the follicle. Meanwhile, egg increases slightly in size and all chromosomes are contained within a membrane into the cytoplasm. With
the increase of LH as a trigger, breaks the membrane and egg
chromosomes divided into two equal groups and such a group moves out of
the egg (forming a polar body). An egg that has been known as one (or IBD) mature egg. The eggs that have not matured, can not be fertilized to become a baby. In
the natural cycle, an egg, which has been released from the follicle,
and is then picked up by the end of one of the fallopian tubes. If
the egg is lucky to be fertilized, the chromosomes splits again into
two equal groups and pushes one of the groups outside of the egg to form
a second polar body. The remaining chromosomes are combined with sperm chromosomes entered the egg.
In 1935, it was noted that if rabbit eggs were removed from their follicles, some of them would spontaneously mature. In 1965, Edwards (one of the original scientists responsible for the first baby born through IVF) showed that the same thing happened to human eggs. The first baby born through IVF, Louise Brown, was not born until 1978. The first baby born by IVM was reported in 1991 and came from an egg obtained during cesarean section. IVM has probably had a slow start due to a lack of recognition of the importance of maintaining the cells surrounding the egg in the normal development of the egg. A means of communication for commercial egg maturation is already available and data that allow pregnancy to occur at a reasonable rate in appropriately selected patients were also developed.
Compared to IVF, IVM overall experience in humans is limited. IVM perhaps between 10 000 and 20 000 cases using current methodologies have been conducted over the last decade. By comparison, about 60 000 cases of IVF performed in the United States alone each year. It is considerably more experience with IVM in nonhuman species. IVF was an important tool in raising cattle, but was replaced by IVM there ten years. More than 100,000 cattle born using IVM each year.
Most clinical reports suggest that IVM is currently less effective than IVF cases (clinical pregnancy rate of 25-35% per transfer). For many patients and doctors, there are other reasons to prefer IVM IVM before IVF or IVF in selected patients. For the patient, the process of IVM is more complicated (sometimes less) undergoing ovulation induction with intrauterine insemination. For patients self payment, the cost is about half of the total cost of IVF. For patients who are the best candidates for IVM IVM is a significantly lower risk for the patient than IVF. IVM also appeal to women who prefer not to take many drugs in his body, but still need to do IVF.
IVM is available worldwide, but is much less available than IVF. For example, there are about 400 IVF programs in the United States, but the number of programs offering IVM is probably less than twenty years. In the United States, reports IVF cycle is legally binding, but national reports IVM cycles seen as routine IVF cycles and does not identify the programs they offer. Report does not distinguish IVM IVF cycles discourages routine programs IVM IVM take a pregnancy rate of less than IVF.
Almost no IVM is recommended for all patients, and patient subgroup for which IVM is a good option, being defined. Everyone agrees that younger patients with a large number of small follicles (antral follicles) visible in their ovaries on ultrasound are good candidates for IVM. They are also the subgroup of patients who are most likely to get pregnant with IVF.
This introduction to IVM, perhaps, focused on the reasons women can not choose IVM, namely:
• Physicians have less experience with IVM IVF• It is difficult to find programs that offer AM IV• There is a low success rate (per cycle) for IVM with IVF.
This raises the obvious question of why a woman may choose to IVM instead of conventional IVF and why an IVF program may choose to develop their ability to offer IVF (which is more complicated than IVF Laboratory). All responses are patient-centered, ie
• IVM is much easier for the patient to traditional IVF (which makes it particularly good for women chose to use a known donor)• IVM usually costs half as much as in vitro fertilization (including the cost of drugs)• IVM hardly used drugs; mainly based on the natural cycle of women• Almost no drug injections required• There is almost no blood tests required• There is very little required visits• There are few side effects associated with these cycles. The risk of severe ovarian hyperstimulation is eliminated.
In 1935, it was noted that if rabbit eggs were removed from their follicles, some of them would spontaneously mature. In 1965, Edwards (one of the original scientists responsible for the first baby born through IVF) showed that the same thing happened to human eggs. The first baby born through IVF, Louise Brown, was not born until 1978. The first baby born by IVM was reported in 1991 and came from an egg obtained during cesarean section. IVM has probably had a slow start due to a lack of recognition of the importance of maintaining the cells surrounding the egg in the normal development of the egg. A means of communication for commercial egg maturation is already available and data that allow pregnancy to occur at a reasonable rate in appropriately selected patients were also developed.
Compared to IVF, IVM overall experience in humans is limited. IVM perhaps between 10 000 and 20 000 cases using current methodologies have been conducted over the last decade. By comparison, about 60 000 cases of IVF performed in the United States alone each year. It is considerably more experience with IVM in nonhuman species. IVF was an important tool in raising cattle, but was replaced by IVM there ten years. More than 100,000 cattle born using IVM each year.
Most clinical reports suggest that IVM is currently less effective than IVF cases (clinical pregnancy rate of 25-35% per transfer). For many patients and doctors, there are other reasons to prefer IVM IVM before IVF or IVF in selected patients. For the patient, the process of IVM is more complicated (sometimes less) undergoing ovulation induction with intrauterine insemination. For patients self payment, the cost is about half of the total cost of IVF. For patients who are the best candidates for IVM IVM is a significantly lower risk for the patient than IVF. IVM also appeal to women who prefer not to take many drugs in his body, but still need to do IVF.
IVM is available worldwide, but is much less available than IVF. For example, there are about 400 IVF programs in the United States, but the number of programs offering IVM is probably less than twenty years. In the United States, reports IVF cycle is legally binding, but national reports IVM cycles seen as routine IVF cycles and does not identify the programs they offer. Report does not distinguish IVM IVF cycles discourages routine programs IVM IVM take a pregnancy rate of less than IVF.
Almost no IVM is recommended for all patients, and patient subgroup for which IVM is a good option, being defined. Everyone agrees that younger patients with a large number of small follicles (antral follicles) visible in their ovaries on ultrasound are good candidates for IVM. They are also the subgroup of patients who are most likely to get pregnant with IVF.
This introduction to IVM, perhaps, focused on the reasons women can not choose IVM, namely:
• Physicians have less experience with IVM IVF• It is difficult to find programs that offer AM IV• There is a low success rate (per cycle) for IVM with IVF.
This raises the obvious question of why a woman may choose to IVM instead of conventional IVF and why an IVF program may choose to develop their ability to offer IVF (which is more complicated than IVF Laboratory). All responses are patient-centered, ie
• IVM is much easier for the patient to traditional IVF (which makes it particularly good for women chose to use a known donor)• IVM usually costs half as much as in vitro fertilization (including the cost of drugs)• IVM hardly used drugs; mainly based on the natural cycle of women• Almost no drug injections required• There is almost no blood tests required• There is very little required visits• There are few side effects associated with these cycles. The risk of severe ovarian hyperstimulation is eliminated.
No comments:
Post a Comment