Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32128452›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction open2020

Feasibility study for performing uterus transplantation in the Netherlands.

H E Peters, L J M Juffermans, C B Lambalk, J J M L Dekker, T Fernhout, F A Groenman, C J M de Groot, A W J Hoksbergen, J A F Huirne, R A de Leeuw and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 38% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Uterus Transplantation as a Surgical Innovation.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2023
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Options for acquiring motherhood in absolute uterine factor infertility; adoption, surrogacy and uterine transplantation.The obstetrician & gynaecologist : the journal for continuing professional development from the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

H E PetersDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6745-374X
L J M JuffermansDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
C B LambalkDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
J J M L DekkerDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
T FernhoutDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
F A GroenmanDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
C J M de GrootDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
A W J HoksbergenDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
J A F HuirneDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
R A de LeeuwDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
N M van MelloDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
J H NederhoedDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
R SchatsDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
M O VerhoevenDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
W J K HehenkampDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionIs it feasible to perform uterus transplantations (UTx) in a tertiary centre in the Netherlands? SUMMARY ANSWER: Considering all ethical principles, surgical risks and financial aspects, we have concluded that at this time, it is not feasible to establish the UTx procedure at our hospital. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: UTx is a promising treatment for absolute uterine factor infertility. It is currently being investigated within several clinical trials worldwide and has resulted in the live birth of 19 children so far. Most UTx procedures are performed in women with the Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser (MRKH) syndrome, a congenital disorder characterized by absence of the uterus. In the Netherlands, the only possible option for these women for having children is adoption or surrogacy. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: We performed a feasibility study to search for ethical, medical and financial support for performing UTx at the Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING

methodsFor this feasibility study, we created a special interest group, including gynaecologists, transplant surgeons, researchers and a financial advisor. Also, in collaboration with the patients' association for women with MRKH, a questionnaire study was performed to research the decision-making in possible recipients. In this paper, we present an overview of current practices and literature on UTx and discuss the results of our feasibility study. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A high level of interest from the possible recipients became apparent from our questionnaire amongst women with MRKH. The majority (64.8%) positively considered UTx with a live donor, with 69.6% having a potential donor available. However, this 'non-life-saving transplantation' requires careful balancing of risks and benefits. The UTx procedure includes two complex surgeries and unknown consequences for the unborn child. The costs for one UTx are calculated to be around €100 000 and will not be compensated by medical insurance. The Clinical Ethics Committee places great emphasis on the principle of non-maleficence and the 'fair distribution of health services'. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: In the Netherlands, alternatives for having children are available and future collaboration with experienced foreign clinics that offer the procedure is a possibility not yet investigated. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsThe final assessment of this feasibility study is that that there are not enough grounds to support this procedure at our hospital at this point in time. We will closely follow the developments and will re-evaluate the feasibility in the future. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This feasibility study was funded by the VU Medical Center (Innovation grant 2017). No conflicts of interest have been reported relevant to the subject of all authors. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: n.a.

Indexed as

absolute uterine factor infertilityfeasibility studymedical ethicsMRKH syndromeuterus transplantation

Identifiers

PMID32128452
PMCPMC7048682
OpenAlexW3008254453

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.