Fertility preservation: should we reconsider the terminology?
Fertility preservation: should we reconsider the terminology?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/humrep/dez160
复制
发表时间：
2019-10-01
影响因子：
6.1
通讯作者：
Sermondade, Nathalie
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Grynberg, Michael;Sermondade, Nathalie
“生育能力保存”一词包含的技术实际上主要是基于配子和性腺组织的冷冻保存。虽然这些技术在活产方面的效率仍然难以确定，但值得注意的是，这种模棱两可的术语经常被使用，而且目前似乎已被广泛接受。为了限制对真正保留生育能力的可能性的错误希望，我们的医学界应该讨论对“保留生育能力”一词进行限定。“配子或性腺组织冷冻保存”可能是一个更明确、更现实的术语。然而，它可能只捕获了一个更全球性的“生育保护”过程的一部分。讨论如何以及何时使用哪些术语，甚至找到一个更现实、更统一的术语，都需要进一步探索。
The term 'fertility preservation' embraces techniques that are actually mostly based on gamete and gonadal tissue cryopreservation. While the efficiency of these techniques in terms of live births remains difficult to establish, it is remarkable that this ambiguous terminology is routinely used and seems currently well accepted. In order to limit false hopes about the real chances of truly preserving fertility, our medical community should discuss qualifying the term 'fertility preservation'. 'Gamete or gonadal tissue cryopreservation' could appear as a more unambiguous and realistic term. However, it probably captures only a segment of a more global 'fertility preservation' process. Discussing how and when to use which terminology, and even finding a more realistic and unifying term, should be further explored.