UpToDate
Official reprint from UpToDate®
www.uptodate.com ©2017 UpToDate, Inc. and/or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

Uterus transplantation for absolute uterine factor infertility: Ethics, patient selection, and consent

Authors
Mats Brännström, MD, PhD
César Díaz-García, MD
Section Editor
Tommaso Falcone, MD, FRCSC, FACOG
Deputy Editor
Kristen Eckler, MD, FACOG

INTRODUCTION

Historically, no restorative treatment has been available for women with absolute uterine factor infertility (ie, uterus absence or non-function). For these women, alternative pathways to parenthood have included adoption or foster parenting and, in countries where available, use of a gestational carrier. However, gestational surrogacy has limited availability worldwide and, for some women, the desire to carry and birth a child make the option of uterus transplantation appealing. This topic will discuss the ethics, indications, and patient selection for uterus transplantation, an experimental approach to restoring fertility in women with absolute uterine factor infertility. The purpose of this topic is to provide information on this developing technology for clinicians and patients; the topic is not intended to be used for treatment decisions.

Specific discussion of the procedures for uterus transplantation and general issues related to organ transplantation can be found in the following topics:

(See "Uterus transplantation for absolute uterine factor infertility: Surgery, immunosuppression, and obstetric management".)

(See "Transplantation immunobiology".)

(See "Overview of immunosuppressive agents used for prevention and treatment of graft-versus-host disease".)

                       
To continue reading this article, you must log in with your personal, hospital, or group practice subscription. For more information on subscription options, click below on the option that best describes you:

Subscribers log in here

Literature review current through: Nov 2017. | This topic last updated: Dec 04, 2017.
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use ©2017 UpToDate, Inc.
References
Top
  1. Jones BP, Saso S, Yazbek J, Smith JR. Uterine transplantation: past, present and future. BJOG 2016; 123:1434.
  2. Fageeh W, Raffa H, Jabbad H, Marzouki A. Transplantation of the human uterus. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2002; 76:245.
  3. Ozkan O, Akar ME, Ozkan O, et al. Preliminary results of the first human uterus transplantation from a multiorgan donor. Fertil Steril 2013; 99:470.
  4. Erman Akar M, Ozkan O, Aydinuraz B, et al. Clinical pregnancy after uterus transplantation. Fertil Steril 2013; 100:1358.
  5. Brännström M, Johannesson L, Bokström H, et al. Livebirth after uterus transplantation. Lancet 2015; 385:607.
  6. Brännström M, Bokström H, Dahm-Kähler P, et al. One uterus bridging three generations: first live birth after mother-to-daughter uterus transplantation. Fertil Steril 2016; 106:261.
  7. Kvarnstrom N, de Beaufort I. Uterus transplantation: Necessity or indulgence? Fourth ELPAT Congress. Rome, Italy 2016.
  8. Grady D. Woman with Transplanted Uterus Gives Birth, the First in the U.S. New York Times. December 2, 2017. www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/health/uterus-transplant-baby.html?_r=0 (Accessed on December 04, 2017).
  9. Brännström M, Johannesson L, Dahm-Kähler P, et al. First clinical uterus transplantation trial: a six-month report. Fertil Steril 2014; 101:1228.
  10. Hellström M, El-Akouri RR, Sihlbom C, et al. Towards the development of a bioengineered uterus: comparison of different protocols for rat uterus decellularization. Acta Biomater 2014; 10:5034.
  11. Sieunarine K, Zakaria FB, Boyle DC, et al. Possibilities for fertility restoration: a new surgical technique. Int Surg 2005; 90:249.
  12. Arora KS, Blake V. Uterus transplantation: ethical and regulatory challenges. J Med Ethics 2014; 40:396.
  13. Grimbizis GF, Camus M, Tarlatzis BC, et al. Clinical implications of uterine malformations and hysteroscopic treatment results. Hum Reprod Update 2001; 7:161.
  14. Folch M, Pigem I, Konje JC. Müllerian agenesis: etiology, diagnosis, and management. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2000; 55:644.
  15. Petrozza JC, Gray MR, Davis AJ, Reindollar RH. Congenital absence of the uterus and vagina is not commonly transmitted as a dominant genetic trait: outcomes of surrogate pregnancies. Fertil Steril 1997; 67:387.
  16. Garg AX, Nevis IF, McArthur E, et al. Gestational hypertension and preeclampsia in living kidney donors. N Engl J Med 2015; 372:124.
  17. Brett KM, Higgins JA. Hysterectomy prevalence by Hispanic ethnicity: evidence from a national survey. Am J Public Health 2003; 93:307.
  18. Arian SE, Flyckt RL, Farrell RM, et al. Characterizing women with interest in uterine transplant clinical trials in the United States: who seeks information on this experimental treatment? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 216:190.
  19. Heinonen PK, Saarikoski S, Pystynen P. Reproductive performance of women with uterine anomalies. An evaluation of 182 cases. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1982; 61:157.
  20. ASHERMAN JG. Traumatic intra-uterine adhesions. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp 1950; 57:892.
  21. ASHERMAN JG. Amenorrhoea traumatica (atretica). J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp 1948; 55:23.
  22. Deans R, Abbott J. Review of intrauterine adhesions. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 2010; 17:555.
  23. Al-Inany H. Intrauterine adhesions. An update. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2001; 80:986.
  24. Schenker JG, Margalioth EJ. Intrauterine adhesions: an updated appraisal. Fertil Steril 1982; 37:593.
  25. Holm K, Nysom K, Brocks V, et al. Ultrasound B-mode changes in the uterus and ovaries and Doppler changes in the uterus after total body irradiation and allogeneic bone marrow transplantation in childhood. Bone Marrow Transplant 1999; 23:259.
  26. Bath LE, Critchley HO, Chambers SE, et al. Ovarian and uterine characteristics after total body irradiation in childhood and adolescence: Response to sex steroid replacement. BJOG 1999; 106:1265.
  27. Larsen EC, Schmiegelow K, Rechnitzer C, et al. Radiotherapy at a young age reduces uterine volume of childhood cancer survivors. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2004; 83:96.
  28. Critchley HO, Wallace WH. Impact of cancer treatment on uterine function. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2005; :64.
  29. Edington HD, Sugarbaker PH, McDonald HD. Management of the surgically traumatized, irradiated, and infected pelvis. Surgery 1988; 103:690.
  30. Galliano D, Bellver J, Díaz-García C, et al. ART and uterine pathology: how relevant is the maternal side for implantation? Hum Reprod Update 2015; 21:13.
  31. Ruiz-Alonso M, Galindo N, Pellicer A, Simón C. What a difference two days make: "personalized" embryo transfer (pET) paradigm: a case report and pilot study. Hum Reprod 2014; 29:1244.
  32. Hart R, Khalaf Y, Yeong CT, et al. Prospective controlled study of the effect of uterine fibroids on the outcome of assisted conception cycles. Fertil Steril 2000; 74:S111.
  33. Sunkara SK, Khairy M, El-Toukhy T, et al. The effect of intramural fibroids without uterine cavity involvement on the outcome of IVF treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 2010; 25:418.
  34. Testa G, Koon EC, Johannesson L. Living Donor Uterus Transplant and Surrogacy: Ethical Analysis According to the Principle of Equipoise. Am J Transplant 2017; 17:912.
  35. Lefkowitz A, Edwards M, Balayla J. The Montreal Criteria for the Ethical Feasibility of Uterine Transplantation. Transpl Int 2012; 25:439.
  36. Flyckt RL, Farrell RM, Perni UC, et al. Deceased Donor Uterine Transplantation: Innovation and Adaptation. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 128:837.
  37. Arora KS, Blake V. Uterus transplantation: the ethics of moving the womb. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 125:971.
  38. McDiarmid SV. Donor and procurement related issues in vascularized composite allograft transplantation. Curr Opin Organ Transplant 2013; 18:665.
  39. Caplan AL, Perry C, Plante LA, et al. Moving the womb. Hastings Cent Rep 2007; 37:18.
  40. Johannesson L, Kvarnström N, Mölne J, et al. Uterus transplantation trial: 1-year outcome. Fertil Steril 2015; 103:199.
  41. Brännström M, Dahm-Kähler P, Diaz-Garcia C. Uterine transplantation is not a good use of limited resources: AGAINST: It is a highly effective infertility treatment. BJOG 2016; 123:1440.
  42. Farrell RM, Falcone T. Uterine transplant: new medical and ethical considerations. Lancet 2015; 385:581.
  43. The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. Guidance to organ procurement programs (OPOs) for VCA deceased donor authorization. https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/media/1137/vca_donor_guidance.pdf (Accessed on November 16, 2016).
  44. Balayla J, Dahdouh EM. Uterine transplantation is not a good use of limited resources: FOR: Uterine transplantation is not a good use of limited resources-a case of distributive justice and burden of disease. BJOG 2016; 123:1439.
  45. Somigliana E, De Benedictis S, Vercellini P, et al. Fibroids not encroaching the endometrial cavity and IVF success rate: a prospective study. Hum Reprod 2011; 26:834.
  46. Yan L, Ding L, Li C, et al. Effect of fibroids not distorting the endometrial cavity on the outcome of in vitro fertilization treatment: a retrospective cohort study. Fertil Steril 2014; 101:716.
  47. Silver RM, Landon MB, Rouse DJ, et al. Maternal morbidity associated with multiple repeat cesarean deliveries. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107:1226.
  48. Järvholm S, Johannesson L, Clarke A, Brännström M. Uterus transplantation trial: Psychological evaluation of recipients and partners during the post-transplantation year. Fertil Steril 2015; 104:1010.
  49. Kumnig M, Jowsey SG, Rumpold G, et al. The psychological assessment of candidates for reconstructive hand transplantation. Transpl Int 2012; 25:573.
  50. Järvholm S, Johannesson L, Brännström M. Psychological aspects in pre-transplantation assessments of patients prior to entering the first uterus transplantation trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2015; 94:1035.
  51. Kvarnström N, Järvholm S, Johannesson L, et al. Live Donors of the Initial Observational Study of Uterus Transplantation-Psychological and Medical Follow-Up Until 1 Year After Surgery in the 9 Cases. Transplantation 2017; 101:664.
  52. Nguyen ML, Flowers L. Cervical cancer screening in immunocompromised women. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2013; 40:339.
  53. Markowitz LE, Dunne EF, Saraiya M, et al. Human papillomavirus vaccination: recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). MMWR Recomm Rep 2014; 63:1.
  54. Kumar D, Unger ER, Panicker G, et al. Immunogenicity of quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine in organ transplant recipients. Am J Transplant 2013; 13:2411.
  55. Sofic A, Husic-Selimovic A, Carovac A, et al. The Significance of MRI Evaluation of the Uterine Junctional Zone in the Early Diagnosis of Adenomyosis. Acta Inform Med 2016; 24:103.
  56. Braga DP, Setti AS, Vingris L, et al. The male factor of infertility should not be an issue for the selection of patients for extended embryo culture programmes. Andrology 2013; 1:758.
  57. Coates A, Hesla JS, Hurliman A, et al. Use of suboptimal sperm increases the risk of aneuploidy of the sex chromosomes in preimplantation blastocyst embryos. Fertil Steril 2015; 104:866.
  58. Aston KI, Uren PJ, Jenkins TG, et al. Aberrant sperm DNA methylation predicts male fertility status and embryo quality. Fertil Steril 2015; 104:1388.
  59. Frydman N, Prisant N, Hesters L, et al. Adequate ovarian follicular status does not prevent the decrease in pregnancy rates associated with high sperm DNA fragmentation. Fertil Steril 2008; 89:92.
  60. Fiorentino F, Bono S, Biricik A, et al. Application of next-generation sequencing technology for comprehensive aneuploidy screening of blastocysts in clinical preimplantation genetic screening cycles. Hum Reprod 2014; 29:2802.
  61. Sullivan M, Karlsson J, Ware JE Jr. The Swedish SF-36 Health Survey--I. Evaluation of data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability and construct validity across general populations in Sweden. Soc Sci Med 1995; 41:1349.
  62. Ware JE, Jr. SF-36 health survey update. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000; 25:3130.
  63. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983; 67:361.
  64. Spanier GB. Measuring dyadic adjustment: new scales for assessing the quality of marriage an similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and Family 1976; 38:15.
  65. Spanier GB. The measurement of marital quality. J Sex Marital Ther 1979; 5:288.
  66. Boivin J, Takefman J, Braverman A. The Fertility Quality of Life (FertiQoL) tool: development and general psychometric properties. Fertil Steril 2011; 96:409.
  67. Department of Health and Human Services, Advisory Committee on Organ Transplantation. Summary recommendations to the Secretary, 2012. http://organdonor.gov/legislation/acotsummaryrec.html (Accessed on November 18, 2016).