[Uterus transplantation: state of knowledge and ethical reflection]. / Greffe utérine : état des lieux et réflexion éthique.

Uterus transplantation: state of knowledge and ethical reflection. Nowadays is uterine transplantation the only treatment for absolute uterine infertility. This experimental surgery is spreading worldwide since the past two years. The first livebirths from uterus transplantations from living donors in Sweden gave the impetus for more research. Since several team works on the uterine transplantation from living or deceased donors. Uterus transplantation and the choice between live and deceased donor raises up technical and ethical questions.

Greffe utérine : état des lieux et réflexion éthique. La greffe utérine est à ce jour le seul traitement de la stérilité d'origine utérine. Cette chirurgie expérimentale est en expansion à travers le monde, en particulier depuis ces deux dernières années. L'élan a été donné par les premières naissances obtenues en Suède en 2014 à l'issue de greffes à partir de donneuses vivantes. Depuis, plusieurs équipes travaillent sur la greffe à partir de donneuses vivantes mais également en état de mort encéphalique. La greffe utérine en tant que telle ainsi que le choix entre les donneuses vivantes et décédées soulèvent de nombreuses questions techniques et éthiques.

Transgender Males as Potential Donors for Uterus Transplantation: A Survey.

Uterus transplantation is a new treatment for patients with absolute uterine infertility that is conducted in order to enable them to carry their own pregnancy. One of the limitations for its development is donor availability. Some transgender males undergo a hysterectomy in the gender-affirming surgery process, and might be interested in donating their uterus for transplantation. In this manuscript, we report the results of a survey designed to determine the attitudes of such individuals regarding donation of their uterus for this purpose. Over 32 years (January 1989-January 2021), 348 biological women underwent hysterectomy at our hospital as part of gender-affirming surgery. The survey was sent to 212 of the 348 prospective participants (for 136, we lacked postal or email addresses). Among the 212 surveys sent, we obtained responses from 94 individuals (44%): 83 (88.3%) stated they would agree to donate, of whom 44 would do so for altruism, 23 for the usefulness of the gesture and 16 out of understanding of the desire to have a child; 63 (75.5%) wanted to know the recipient and 45 (54.2%) wanted to know the result of the donation. According to this survey, a high proportion of transgender males surveyed would be interested in donating their uterus for uterus transplantation.

The uterus in transgender men.

Transgender men experience a disharmony between their birth sex and their intimate sense of gender belonging. Gender-affirming hormone therapy and gender-affirming surgery (GAS) are often inherently part of the gender-affirming process. In this context, we should ask whether it is better to keep or remove the uterus. Keeping the uterus and ovaries avoids a surgical procedure and a pubic scar. Furthermore, it preserves fertility and the possibility of carrying a baby. On the other hand, keeping the uterus is often psychologically unbearable for transgender men and the long-term effects of androgens on the uterus and ovaries remain uncertain. Conversely, hysterectomy and oophorectomy are part of the GAS process. New mini-invasive surgery procedures for hysterectomies decrease the risks and limit the likelihood of scars to a minimum. In practice, the data suggest that very few transgender men carry a pregnancy and/or use their oocytes after gender-reaffirming treatment. Clinicians should counsel their transgender men patients about the definitive infertility consequences of hysterectomy and oophorectomy and discuss all fertility preservation options before undertaking GAS. Individualized approaches must be preferred to systematic procedures regarding the personal decision to keep or not keep the uterus and ovaries.

Uterus Transplantation with Live Donors: Screening Candidates in One French Center.

We report our experience regarding the profile and screening process of potential recipients (R) and their live donors (D) in our Uterus transplantation (UTx) trial from 2014 to 2020. The initial screening was performed using medical questionnaires and consultations. The second step of the screening consisted of two individual interviews with an independent multidisciplinary committee. Then, a complete medical, biological and imaging assessment of the directed living D, the R, and her partner was performed over a two-day hospitalization. A total of 239 women contacted our department: 165 potentials R and 74 potentials D. During the first step of screening, 141 R and 45 D were excluded. Only 12 R/D pairs were pursued. During inclusion, 10 R/D pairs were excluded. One R/D pair is still under evaluation. Finally, only 1 R/D pair was definitively included (0.6%), which led us to perform the first French UTx in March 2019 with a successful graft. The primary limiting factors of inclusion were due to very strict criteria and difficulty of having a suitable directed living D. The International Society of UTx (ISUTx) guidelines based on worldwide results of trials can help ease our inclusion criteria in the future while remaining safe for patients.

Women's views on Friendly IVF: a qualitative preliminary study.

OBJECTIVE: To study in the French Context women's experiences with a low-stimulation regimen of in vitro fertilisation (Friendly IVF) and to compare them with those of women undergoing standard IVF (S-IVF). POPULATION AND METHODS: Two assisted reproduction technology centers participated in this preliminary study. Patients'views were explored qualitatively. In-depth interviews were conducted at the end of the second monitored cycle. Twelve friendly IVF patients and 13 S-IVF patients participated in the study. RESULTS: The respondents indicated that the most positive aspect of Friendly IVF was the low doses of hormones used. Cancellation of cycles and failure of oocyte retrieval were perceived the most negatively. Women in the Friendly IVF group reported fewer side effects and expressed emotional distress less acutely than women in the S-IVF group. The Friendly IVF treatment was percieved as a first step, sustaining the hope of success with a standard treatment. CONCLUSION: Friendly IVF, as practiced in the center studied, represents a valuable alternative for most respondents as a first step in IVF treatment.