Angepasstes Management bei „unerfülltem Kinderwunsch“

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Das Reproduktionsverhalten in der westlichen Gesellschaft hat sich in den letzten zwei Jahrzehnten sehr verändert. Elternschaft wird oft spät und zeitlich genau geplant. Tritt eine Konzeption trotz regelmäßigem Verkehr in der fruchtbaren Zeit nicht im ersten halben Jahr ein, liegt möglicherweise bereits eine Subfertilität vor. Trotzdem erreicht die Lebendgeburtenrate bei unbehandelten, subfertilen Paaren fast 55 % in 36 Monaten (Alter 29,1 ± 4,5). In dieser Zeit kann „fertility awareness“ mit Natürlicher Familienplanung (NFP) die einzig nötige Strategie sein, um Paaren mit guter Prognose zu helfen, die auch bei Therapie keine höhere Aussicht auf eine Schwangerschaft hätten. Überstürztes Eingreifen bei „unerfülltem Kinderwunsch“ kann hier eine unnötige Überbehandlung bedeuten.

Abstract

Reproductive patterns have evolved dramatically in many developed countries over the last two decades and parenthood is now often planned. Most pregnancies occur during the first 6 months of unprotected intercourse. Thereafter subfertility is assumed, although life-birth rates in untreated subfertile couples are nearly 55 % in 36 months. Couples with a reasonably good prognosis can use conventional (natural) methods of fertility awareness during this period because treatment does not improve conception rates and early intervention for presumed infertility may represent overtreatment.

Literatur

• 1 Balasch J. Investigation of the infertile couple: investigation of the infertile couple in the era of assisted reproductive technology: a time for reappraisal.  Hum Reprod. 2000;  15 2251-2257
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Behre H M, Kuhlage J, Gassner C, Sonntag B, Schem C, Schneider H P. et al . Prediction of ovulation by urinary hormone measurements with the home use ClearPlan Fertility Monitor: comparison with transvaginal ultrasound scans and serum hormone measurements.  Hum Reprod. 2000;  15 2478-2482
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Bremme J. Sexualverhalten und Konzeptionswahrscheinlichkeit (Auswertung einer prospektiven Studie zur Natürlichen familienplanung). Düsseldorf; 1991
  Google Scholar
• 4 Cahill D J. What is the optimal medical management of infertility and minor endometriosis?: Analysis and future prospects.  Hum Reprod. 2002;  17 1135-1140
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Cahill D J. What is the optimal medical management of infertility and minor endometriosis?: Analysis and future prospects.  Hum Reprod. 2002;  17 1135-1140
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Collins J A, Burrows E A, Wilan A R. The prognosis for live birth among untreated infertile couples.  Fertil Steril. 1995;  64 22-28
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Colombo B, Masarotto G. Daily fecundability: First results from a new data base. Demographic Research. 2000 3
  Google Scholar
• 8 Dietl J. Geburtenentwicklung: weiterer Rückgang zu erwarten.  Deutsches Ärzteblatt. 2001;  98 1053-1055
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Dor J, Seidman D S, Ben Shlomo, Levran D, Ben Rafael Z, Mashiach S. Cumulative pregnancy rate following in-vitro fertilization: the significance of age and infertility aetiology.  Hum Reprod. 1996;  11 425-428
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Dunson D B, Baird D D, Wilcox A J, Weinberg C R. Day-specific probabilities of clinical pregnancy based on two studies with imperfect measures of ovulation.  Hum Reprod. 1999;  14 1835-1839
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Dunson D B, Colombo B, Baird D D. Changes with age in the level and duration of fertility in the menstrual cycle.  Hum Reprod. 2002;  17 1399-1403
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Dunson D B, Weinberg C R, Baird D D, Kesner J S, Wilcox A J. Assessing human fertility using several markers of ovulation.  Stat Med. 2001;  20 965-978
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Evers J L, de Haas H W, Land J A, Dumoulin J C, Dunselman G A. Treatment-independent pregnancy rate in patients with severe reproductive disorders.  Hum Reprod. 1998;  13 1206-1209
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Frank-Herrmann P, Freundl G, Baur S, Bremme M, Doring G K, Godehardt E A. et al . Effectiveness and acceptibility of the symptothermal method of natural family planning in Germany.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;  165 2052-2054
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Freundl G. [Spermatozoa-cervical mucus interaction: diagnosis and significance].  Gynakologe. 1985;  18 84-91
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Glazener C M, Ford W C, Hull M G. The prognostic power of the post-coital test for natural conception depends on duration of infertility.  Hum Reprod. 2000;  15 1953-1957
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Gleicher N, VanderLaan B, Pratt D, Karande V. Background pregnancy rates in an infertile population.  Hum Reprod. 1996;  11 1011-1012
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Gnoth C. Approaches to natural family planning.  Fertil Steril. 2000;  74 1262-1263
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Gnoth C, Frank-Herrmann P, Bremme M, Freundl G, Godehardt E. [How do self-observed cycle symptoms correlate with ovulation?].  Zentralbl Gynakol. 1996;  118 650-654
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Gnoth C, Freundl G, Frank-Herrmann P. Natural family planning and the management of infertility.  Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2002;  267 67-71
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Guida M, Tommaselli G A, Palomba S, Pellicano M, Moccia G, Di Carlo C. et al . Efficacy of methods for determining ovulation in a natural family planning program.  Fertil Steril. 1999;  72 900-904
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Huges E. G., Fedorkow, D., Collins, J., and Vandekerckhove, P. Ovulation Suppression for Endometriosis (Cochrane Review). Oxford; The Cochrane Library, Update Software 2002
  Google Scholar
• 23 Jensen T K, Scheike T, Keiding N, Schaumburg I, Grandjean P. Selection bias in determining the age dependence of waiting time to pregnancy.  Am J Epidemiol. 2000;  152 565-572
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Jensen T K, Slama R, Ducot B, Suominen J, Cawood E H, Andersen A G. et al . Regional differences in waiting time to pregnancy among fertile couples from four European cities.  Hum Reprod. 2001;  16 2697-2704
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Juul S, Karmaus W, Olsen J. Regional differences in waiting time to pregnancy: pregnancy-based surveys from Denmark, France, Germany, Italy and Sweden. The European Infertility and Subfecundity Study Group.  Hum Reprod. 1999;  14 1250-1254
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Juul S, Keiding N, Tvede M. Retrospectively sampled time-to-pregnancy data may make age-decreasing fecundity look increasing. European Infertility and Subfecundity Study Group.  Epidemiology. 2000;  11 717-719
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Marcoux S, Maheux R, Berube S. Laparoscopic surgery in infertile women with minimal or mild endometriosis. Canadian Collaborative Group on Endometriosis.  N Engl J Med. 1997;  337 217-222
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Masarotto G, Romualdi C. Probability of conception on different days of the menstrual cycle: an ongoing exercise.  Adv Contracept. 1997;  13 105-115
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Olsen J, Kuppers-Chinnow M, Spinelli A. Seeking medical help for subfecundity: a study based upon surveys in five European countries.  Fertil Steril. 1996;  66 95-100
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 30 Schmidt L. Infertile couples' assessment of infertility treatment.  Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1998;  77 649-653
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 31 Schwartz D, MacDonald P DM, Heuchel V. Fecundability, coital frequency and the viability of ova.  Popul Studies. 1980;  34 397-400
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 32 Snick H K, Snick T S, Evers J L, Collins J A. The spontaneous pregnancy prognosis in untreated subfertile couples: the Walcheren primary care study.  Hum Reprod. 1997;  12 1582-1588
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 33 Stanford J B, White G L, Hatasaka H. Timing intercourse to achieve pregnancy: current evidence.  Obstet Gynecol. 2002;  100 1333-1341
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 34 Stolwijk A M, Wetzels A M, Braat D D. Cumulative probability of achieving an ongoing pregnancy after in-vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection according to a woman's age, subfertility diagnosis and primary or secondary subfertility.  Hum Reprod. 2000;  15 203-209
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 35 Tan S L, Royston P, Campbell S, Jacobs H S, Betts J, Mason B. et al . Cumulative conception and livebirth rates after in-vitro fertilisation.  Lancet. 1992;  339 1390-1394
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 36 te Velde E R, Eijkemans R, Habbema H D. Variation in couple fecundity and time to pregnancy, an essential concept in human reproduction.  Lancet. 2000;  355 1928-1929
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 37 Van Voorhis B J, Syrop C H. Cost-effective treatment for the couple with infertility.  Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2000;  43 958-973
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 38 Weinberg C R, Gladen B C, Wilcox A J. Models relating the timing of intercourse to the probability of conception and the sex of the baby.  Biometrics. 1994;  50 358-367
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 39 Wilcox A J, Dunson D, Baird D D. The timing of the “fertile window” in the menstrual cycle: day specific estimates from a prospective study.  BMJ. 2000;  321 1259-1262
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 40 Wilcox A J, Weinberg C R, Baird D D. Timing of sexual intercourse in relation to ovulation. Effects on the probability of conception, survival of the pregnancy, and sex of the baby.  N Engl J Med. 1995;  333 1517-1521
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 41 Zinaman M J, Clegg E D, Brown C C, O'Connor J, Selevan S G. Estimates of human fertility and pregnancy loss.  Fertil Steril. 1996;  65 503-509
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 42 Zuber-Jerger I. Diskussion Reproduktionsmedizin: Zu hohe Risikobereitschaft.  Deutsches Ärzteblatt. 2002;  99 A617-A619
  PubMedGoogle Scholar

Christian Gnoth

Forschungsprojekt NFP an der Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf und Abteilung für gynäkologische Endokrinologie und Reproduktionsmedizin · Kliniken und Seniorenzentren der Stadt Düsseldorf gGmbH · Frauenklinik Benrath

Urdenbacher Allee 83

40593 Düsseldorf

Email: gnoth@uni-duesseldorf.de