Premature ovarian failure: predictability of intermittent ovarian function and response to ovulation induction agents
ABSTRACT To summarize our current knowledge about the predictability of intermittent ovarian function and the response to ovulation induction agents in patients with premature ovarian failure.
In addition to clinical, histological or ultrasonographic features, a new biological marker anti-Müllerian hormone, was evaluated as a marker for ovarian reserve in premature ovarian failure patients with encouraging results. Moreover, even if no treatment has proven to be effective enough to restore ovarian function, a recent study has presented a therapeutic protocol leading to a significant increase in ovulation and a higher pregnancy rate.
Intermittent ovarian function can be spontaneously observed in premature ovarian failure patients. Clinical, biological and ovarian ultrasonographic features may allow an assessment of the presence of ovarian activity, but are not necessarily correlated with a higher ovulation or pregnancy rate. Nevertheless, it appears essential to characterize these patients to determine whether some of them could be candidates who benefit from a particular therapeutic strategy, although most such strategies have not yet demonstrated their efficiency.
Article: Ovulation Induction[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Ovulation induction has developed as a valuable noninvasive therapy for the infertile couple. The nurse's role focuses on assisting the couple, as a unit, to understand and cope with the necessary regimen, tests, examinations, and therapies necessary to reach the goal of conception. The physiologic regulation of the menstrual cycle, current pharmacologic therapy, treatment protocols, and the unique role of the infertility nurse are reviewed.Journal of Obstetric Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing 11/1985; 14(s6). DOI:10.1111/j.1552-6909.1985.tb02798.x · 1.20 Impact Factor
- BMJ (online) 02/2009; 339:b2184. DOI:10.1136/bmj.b2184 · 16.38 Impact Factor
- Fertility and sterility 04/2009; 91(4):e2. DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.12.080 · 4.59 Impact Factor