Subscribe to RSS
![](/products/assets/desktop/img/oa-logo.png)
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1744444
The Pathway of Female Couples in a Fertility Clinic
O percurso de casais homossexuais femininos em uma clínica de fertilidade![](https://www.thieme-connect.de/media/10.1055-s-00030576/202207/lookinside/thumbnails/10-1055-s-0042-1744444_210358-1.jpg)
Abstract
Objective The present study aims to describe the main characteristics of female couples resorting to a fertility clinic, to understand whether these patients have clear previous plans concerning procreation and how they end up completing their family planning, and to briefly describe the main outcomes of the recepción de ovocitos de pareja (ROPA, in the Spanish acronym: in English, reception of partner's oocytes) method.
Methods This is a descriptive retrospective study of the pathway and outcomes of female couples in a fertility clinic during a 2-year period.
Results A total of 129 couples were treated. Only one third of the couples had no condition potentially affecting fertility or advanced age. Most couples were decided to undergo artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization and the majority kept their plans, as opposed to 38% of the couples who decided to the ROPA method (lesbian shared in vitro fertilization) who changed plans. Live birth rates per treatment (including frozen embryo transfers) for artificial insemination, 58% for in vitro fertilization, 80% for treatments with donated oocytes or embryos, and 79% for ROPA. Four in five couples achieved live births.
Conclusion The present study highlights the importance of a thorough medical workup in same-sex couples resorting to assisted reproduction. Despite the higher-than-expected rates of fertility disorders, the outcomes were good. Most couples end up in a single parented method. Furthermore, the results of the ROPA method are reassuring.
Resumo
Objetivo O presente estudo tem como objetivo descrever as principais características dos casais femininos que recorrem a uma clínica de fertilidade, perceber se estas pacientes têm planos prévios claros sobre a procriação, como acabam por completar o seu planejamento familiar e descrever sucintamente os principais resultados do método fertilização in vitro compartilhada lésbica (ROPA, na sigla em espanhol).
Métodos Trata-se de um estudo retrospectivo descritivo da trajetória e dos resultados de casais femininos em uma clínica de fertilidade durante um período de 2 anos.
Resultados Um total de 129 casais foram tratados. Apenas um terço dos casais não apresentava nenhuma condição que afetasse potencialmente a fertilidade ou idade avançada. A maioria dos casais optou pela inseminação artificial ou fertilização in vitro e a maioria manteve seus planos, ao contrário dos 38% dos casais que decidiram se submeter ao método ROPA que mudaram de planos. As taxas de nascidos vivos por tratamento (incluindo transferências de embriões congelados) – 22% para inseminação artificial, 58% para fertilização in vitro, 80% para tratamentos com oócitos ou embriões doados e 79% para ROPA. Quatro em cada cinco casais conseguiram nascidos vivos.
Conclusão O presente estudo destaca a importância de um acompanhamento médico em casais femininos que recorrem à reprodução assistida. Apesar das taxas mais altas do que o esperado de distúrbios de fertilidade, os resultados foram bons. A maioria dos casais acaba em um método monoparental. Além disso, os resultados do método ROPA são tranquilizadores.
Keywords
donor conception - fertilization in vitro - homosexuality - reproductive techniques - assisted - ROPAPalavras-chave
concepção do doador - fertilização in vitro - homossexualidade - técnicas reprodutivas - assistido - ROPAContributions
All authors contributed substantially to the conception and design of the study, data collection, analysis and interpretation, writing of the article, its clinical review, and approval of its final version.
Publication History
Received: 14 September 2021
Accepted: 02 February 2022
Article published online:
03 June 2022
© 2022. Federação Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil
-
References
- 1 Mackenzie SC, Wickins-Drazilova D, Wickins J. The ethics of fertility treatment for same-sex male couples: Considerations for a modern fertility clinic. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2020; 244: 71-75 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.11.011.
- 2 Soares SR, Cruz M, Vergara V, Requena A, García-Velasco JA. Donor IUI is equally effective for heterosexual couples, single women and lesbians, but autologous IUI does worse. Hum Reprod 2019; 34 (11) 2184-2192 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dez179.
- 3 Bodri D, Nair S, Gill A. , Lamanna G, Rahmati M, Arian-Schad M, et al. Shared motherhood IVF: high delivery rates in a large study of treatments for lesbian couples using partner-donated eggs. Reprod Biomed Online 2018; 36 (02) 130-136 DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.11.006.
- 4 Marina S, Marina D, Marina F, Fosas N, Galiana N, Jové I. Sharing motherhood: biological lesbian co-mothers, a new IVF indication. Hum Reprod 2010; 25 (04) 938-941 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deq008.
- 5 Núñez A, García D, Giménez-Bonafé P, Vassena R, Rodríguez A. Reproductive outcomes in lesbian couples undergoing reception of oocytes from partner versus autologous in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. LGBT Health 2021; 8 (05) 367-371 DOI: 10.1089/lgbt.2020.0282.
- 6 Mamo L. Queering the fertility clinic. J Med Humanit 2013; 34 (02) 227-239 DOI: 10.1007/s10912-013-9210-3.
- 7 Mamo L. Queering reproduction in transnational bio-economies. Reprod Biomed Soc Online 2018; 7: 24-32 DOI: 10.1016/j.rbms.2018.10.008.
- 8 Corbett SL, Frecker HM, Shapiro HM, Yudin MH. Access to fertility services for lesbian women in Canada. Fertil Steril 2013; 100 (04) 1077-1080 DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.05.048.
- 9 Priddle H. How well are lesbians treated in UK fertility clinics?. Hum Fertil (Camb) 2015; 18 (03) 194-199 DOI: 10.3109/14647273.2015.1043654.
- 10 Ravelingien A, Provoost V, Wyverkens E, Buysse A, De Sutter P, Pennings G. Lesbian couples' views about and experiences of not being able to choose their sperm donor. Cult Health Sex 2015; 17 (05) 592-606 DOI: 10.1080/13691058.2014.979883.
- 11 Wykes KA. Fertility services for same-sex couples: policy and practice. Br J Nurs 2012; 21 (14) 871-875 DOI: 10.12968/bjon.2012.21.14.871.
- 12 Ferrara I, Balet R, Grudzinskas JG. Intrauterine donor insemination in single women and lesbian couples: a comparative study of pregnancy rates. Hum Reprod 2000; 15 (03) 621-625 DOI: 10.1093/humrep/15.3.621.
- 13 Carvalho PGC, Cabral CDS, Ferguson L, Gruskin S, Diniz CSG. 'We are not infertile': challenges and limitations faced by women in same-sex relationships when seeking conception services in São Paulo, Brazil. Cult Health Sex 2019; 21 (11) 1257-1272 DOI: 10.1080/13691058.2018.1556343.
- 14 Carpinello OJ, Jacob MC, Nulsen J, Benadiva C. Utilization of fertility treatment and reproductive choices by lesbian couples. Fertil Steril 2016; 106 (07) 1709-1713 .e4 DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.08.050.
- 15 Vander Borght M, Wyns C. Fertility and infertility: Definition and epidemiology. Clin Biochem 2018; 62: 2-10 DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.03.012.
- 16 Johal JK, Gardner RM, Vaughn SJ, Jaswa EG, Hedlin H, Aghajanova L. Pregnancy success rates for lesbian women undergoing intrauterine insemination. F S Rep 2021; 2 (03) 275-281 DOI: 10.1016/j.xfre.2021.04.007.
- 17 Kim AS, Sax MR, Pavolvic ZJ, Jabara SI, DeCherney AH. Lesbian women undergoing assisted reproduction: diverse, but not different. Obstet Gynecol 2020; 136 (03) 543-547 DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003921.
- 18 Gadalla MA, Wang R, van Wely M, Mol BWJ. How should we report outcomes in reproductive medicine?. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018; 51 (01) 7-9 DOI: 10.1002/uog.18969.
- 19 Machado CS. The fate of surplus embryos: ethical and emotional impacts on assisted reproduction. JBRA Assist Reprod 2020; 24 (03) 310-315 DOI: 10.5935/1518-0557.20200015.