z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Fertility preservation: should we reconsider the terminology?
Author(s) -
Michaël Grynberg,
Nathalie Sermondade
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
human reproduction
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.446
H-Index - 226
eISSN - 1460-2350
pISSN - 0268-1161
DOI - 10.1093/humrep/dez160
Subject(s) - fertility , terminology , fertility preservation , term (time) , gamete , biology , demography , population , sociology , sperm , genetics , linguistics , philosophy , physics , quantum mechanics
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.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom