¿Ha cambiado la forma de diagnosticar la pareja infértil?

Juan Castillo; Miguel Dolz; Fernando Bonilla Musoles

doi:10.31403/rpgo.v58i78

Autores/as

Juan Castillo Clínica FIV VALENCIA, Valencia, España. Departamento de Obstetricia y Ginecología, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valencia, España
Miguel Dolz Clínica FIV VALENCIA, Valencia, España. Departamento de Obstetricia y Ginecología, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valencia, España
Fernando Bonilla Musoles Departamento de Obstetricia y Ginecología, Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valencia, España

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31403/rpgo.v58i78

Resumen

Se debate la posible utilidad, o no, de métodos convencionales de evaluación en la pareja infértil, así como la aplicación de marcadores de recientes marcadores de reserva ovárica. Los nuevos enfoques van dirigidos a la evaluación de tres parámetros fundamentales: la ovulación, el estado de las trompas y la capacidad fértil del semen. La determinación de progesterona en día 21 de ciclo, la histerosalpingografía y el seminograma, siguen vigentes como herramienta inicial. Sin embargo, tales parámetros fundamentales deben ser ampliados con el estudio de la reserva ovárica y valorar la integridad uterina. En este sentido, la determinación de la hormona antimülleriana (HAM) o el recuento de folículos antrales (RFA) mediante ecografía transvaginal son hoy avances imprescindibles.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Citas

American Fertility Society. Investigation of the infertile couple. Birmingham, AL, USA: American Fertility Society. 1992.

Rowe PJ, Comhaire F.H, Hargreave TB, et al. (1993) WHO Manual for the Standarized Investigation of the Infertile Couple, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Crosignani PG, Rubin BL. Optimal use of infertility diagnostic tests and treatments. The ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:723-32.

Fertility: assessment and treatment for people with fertility problems. National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2004.

Male Infertility Best Practice Policy Committee of the American Urological Association; Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Report on optimal evaluation of the infertile male. Fertil Steril. 2004;82:S123-30.

Male Infertility Best Practice Policy Committee of the American Urological Association; Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Report on optimal evaluation of the infertile male. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:S202-9.

Strandell A. Surgery in contemporary infertility. Curr Womens Health Rep. 2003;3(5):367-74.

Tanahatoe SJ, Hompes PG, Lambalk CB. Investigation of the infertile couple: should diagnostic laparoscopy be performed in the infertility work up programme in patients undergoing intrauterine insemination? Hum Reprod. 2003;18:8-11.

Erel CT, Senturk LM. Is laparoscopy necessary before assisted reproductive technology? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2005;17:243-8.

Bosteels J, Van Herendael B, Weyers S, D'Hooghe T. The position of diagnostic laparoscopy in current fertility practice. Hum Reprod Update. 2007;13:477-85.

Warne DW, Tredway D, Schertz JC, Schnieper-Samec S, Alam V, Eshkol A. Midluteal serum progesterone levels and pregnancy following ovulation induction with human follicle-stimulating hormone: results of a combined-data analysis. J Reprod Med. 2011;56:31-8.

Bonilla-Musoles F, Dolz M, Raga F, Moreno J. Reproducción Asistida. Abordaje en la práctica clínica. Madrid: Panamericana. 2009.

Rotterdam ESHRE/ASRM-Sponsored PCOS consensus workshop group. Revised 2003 consensus on diagnostic criteria and long-term health risks related to polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Hum Reprod. 2004;19:41-7.

Faddy MJ, Gosden RG, Gougeon A, Richardson SJ, Nelson JF. Accelerated disappearance of ovarian follicles in mid-life: implications for forecasting menopause. Hum Reprod. 1992;7:1342-6.

Broekmans FJ, Kwee J, Hendriks DJ, Mol BW, Lambalk CB. A systematic review of tests predicting ovarian reserve and IVF outcome. Hum Reprod Update. 2006;12:685-718.

Broekmans FJ, de Ziegler D, Howles CM, Gougeon A, Trew G, Olivennes F. The antral follicle count: practical recommendations for better standardization. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1044-51.

de Carvalho BR, Rosa-e-Silva AC, Rosa-e-Silva JC, dos Reis RM, Ferriani RA, de Sá MF. Anti-müllerian hormone is the best predictor of poor response in ICSI cycles of patients with endometriosis. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38:119-22.

Broer SL, Mol B, Dólleman M, Fauser BC, Broekmans FJ. The role of anti-Müllerian hormone assessment in assisted reproductive technology outcome. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2010;22:193-201.

La Marca A, Sighinolfi G, Radi D, Argento C, Baraldi E, Artenisio AC, Stabile G, Volpe A. Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) as a predictive marker in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16:113- 30.

Nelson SM, Yates RW, Fleming R. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone and FSH: prediction of live birth and extremes of response in stimulated cycles--implications for individualization of therapy. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:2414-21.

Almog B, Shehata F, Suissa S, Holzer H, Shalom-Paz E, La Marca A, Muttukrishna S, Blazar A, Hackett R, Nelson SM, Cunha-Filho JS, Eldar-Geva T, Margalioth EJ, Raine-Fenning N, Jayaprakasan K, McIlveen M, Wunder D, Freour T, Nardo LG, Balasch J, Peñarrubia J, Smeenk J, Gnoth C, Godehardt E, Lee TH, Lee MS, Levin I, Gamzu R, Tulandi T. Age-related normograms of serum antimüllerian hormone levels in a population of infertile women: a multicenter study. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:2359-63,

Kovacs P, Matyas S, Boda K, Kaali SG. The effect of endometrial thickness on IVF/ICSI outcome. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:2337-41.

Gottardo F, Kliesch S; World Health Organization. [Semen analysis: spermiogram according to WHO 2010 criteria]. Urologe A. 2011;50:101-8.