Table 3.
Overview of studies reporting on oocyte vitrification in girls with Turner syndrome.
| Study type | Author | N | Procedure | Age (years) | Karyotype in % (number of cells analysed) | Spontaneous thelarche | Spontaneous menarche | AMH (ng/ml) | FSH (IU/l) | AFC | oocytes retrieved | MII-oocytes a vitrified | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Retrospective cohort | Oktay and Bedoschi (2014); Oktay et al. (2010) | 3 | Antagonist | 13 | 45, X[90]/47, XXX[10] (30) | Yes | Yes | 1.59 | 5.7 | 6 | 19 | 9 | +1 MII-oocyteb vitrified after IVM |
| 14 | 45, X[45]/46, XX[55] (20) | Yes | Yes | 0.9 | 5.3 | 12 | 11 | 8 | |||||
| 1.7 | 7 | 4 | |||||||||||
| 13 | 45, X[20]/46, XX[80] (20) | Yes | Yes | 0.76 | 5.6 | 6 | 16 | 7 | +5 MII-oocyteb vitrified after IVM | ||||
| Talaulikar et al. (2019) | 7 | Antagonist | 22 | 45, X[100] (NR) | Yes | Yes | 0.49 | 6.9 | 7 | 9 | 6 | ||
| 18 | 45, X[83]/46, XX[17] (NR) | Yes | Yes | 0.43 | 3.2 | 9 | 13 | 8 | |||||
| 18 | 45, X[61]/46, XX[39] (NR) | Yes | Yes | 0.98 | 7.4 | 11 | 9 | 6 | |||||
| 25 | 45, X/46, XX/47, XXX (NR) | Yes | Yes | 1.33 | 2.9 | 12 | 10 | 10 | |||||
| 21 | 45, X[63]/46, XX[37] (NR) | Yes | Yes | 0.49 | 6.2 | 5 | 4 | 4 | |||||
| 22 | 45, X[50]/46, XX[50] (NR) | Yes | Yes | 2.98 | 8.4 | 14 | 6 | 6 | |||||
| 26 | 45, X[88]/46, XX[12] (NR) | Yes | Yes | 1.69 | 7.5 | 11 | 12 | 10 | In two stimulation cycles | ||||
| Vergier et al. (2019) | 3 | Antagonist | 28 | 46, XX del(Xp) (NR) | Yes | Yes | 0.50 | 10 | 6 | 3 | 2 | ||
| 3 | 2 | ||||||||||||
| 7 | 5 | ||||||||||||
| 25 | 45, X0 [100] (100) | Yes | Yes | 8.81 | 6.5 | 18 | 20 | 17 | |||||
| 18 | 46, X[83]/45, X[9]/46, XderX[8] (NR) | Yes | Yes | 13.30 | 5.9 | PCOS | 25 | 20 | |||||
| Martel et al. (2022) | 13 | Antagonist | 13 | Mosaic | NR | Yes | 2.99 | 5.2 | NR | 14 | 12 | ||
| 14 | Turner syndrome | NR | No | <0.16 | 0.4 | NR | 4 | 2 | |||||
| 14 | Mosaic | NR | Yes | 2.08 | 4.5 | NR | 21 | 16 | |||||
| 14 | Turner syndrome | Yes | Yes | 0.03 | 20.6 | NR | 0 | – | Three attempts | ||||
| 15 | Turner syndrome | NR | NR | NR | 3.9 | NR | 0 | – | Two attempts | ||||
| 15 | Turner syndrome | NR | NR | NR | 0.2 | NR | 15 | 15 | |||||
| 15 | Mosaic | NR | Yes | <0.003 | 1.8 | NR | 0 | – | |||||
| 16 | Mosaic | Yes | Yes | 1.63 | 0.5 | NR | 18 | 16 | In two stimulation cycles | ||||
| 17 | Mosaic | NR | Yes | NR | 1.1 | NR | 3 | 0 | Two attempts | ||||
| 18 | Mosaic | NR | NR | NR | <0.1 | NR | 0 | – | Two attempts | ||||
| 21 | Mosaic | NR | Yes | 2.6 | 6.5 | NR | 22 | 12 | |||||
| 21 | Turner syndrome | NR | Yes | <0.03 | 9.3 | NR | 2 | 0 | Two attempts | ||||
| 21 | Mosaic | Yes | Yes | 5.34 | 5.4 | NR | 19 | 14 | |||||
| Brouillet et al. (2023) | 14 | Antagonist | 15 | 45, X[40]/47, XXX[60] (NR) | Yes | Yes | 0.06 | 11 | NR | 0 | – | ||
| 16 | 45, X[5]/46, X, del(X)[95] (NR) | Yes | Yes | 0.4 | 8.9 | 2 |
|
|
|||||
| 16 | 45, X[6]/46, XX[94] (NR) | No | NR | 1.29 | 4.6 | 8 |
|
|
|||||
| 17 | 45, X[18]/46, XX[82] (NR) | Yes | Yes | 1.16 | 3.4 | 6 | 11 | 11 | |||||
| 17 | 45, X[36]/46, XX[64] (NR) | Yes | Yes | 0.85 | 6.4 | 20 | 5 | 5 | |||||
| 18 | 45, X[50]/46, XX[50] (NR) | Yes | Yes | 0.89 | 7.4 | 9 |
|
|
|||||
| 18 | 45, X[89]/47, XXX[11] (NR) | Yes | Yes | 0.54 | 7.6 | 3 | 0 | – | |||||
| 22 | 45, X[83]/47, XXX[17] (NR) | Yes | Yes | 0.6 | 6.3 | 4 |
|
|
|||||
| 22 | 45, X[90]/47, XXX[10] (NR) | Yes | Yes | 0.26 | 20.2 | 9 |
|
|
|||||
| 22 | 45, X[39]/47, XXX[61] (NR) | Yes | Yes | 0.58 | 10.3 | 8 | 2 | 2 | |||||
| 24 | 45, X[95]/46, XX[1]/47, XXX[4] (NR) | Yes | Yes | 2.3 | NR | 12 | 8 | 4 | |||||
| 24 | 45, X[30]/46, XX[70] (NR) | Yes | Yes | NR | NR | 8 |
|
|
|||||
| 30 | 45, X[30]/46, XX[70] (NR) | Yes | Yes | 3.7 | 5.9 | 40 | 9 | 9 | |||||
| 35 | 45, X[32]/46, XX[68] (NR) | Yes | Yes | 1.97 | 7.2 | 15 |
|
|
|||||
| Rodriguez-Wallberg et al. (2023) | 10 | NR | 14–22 | 10/10 | 10/10 | 1.1 ± 1.0 (0.3–3.2) | 5.1 ± 5.4 (0–19) per cycle |
|
|||||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Case report | Kavoussi et al. (2008) | 1 | Antagonist | 28 | Mosaic | NR | NR | NR | 4.3 | 40 | 15 | 13 | |
| Lau et al. (2009) | 1 | Agonist | 16 | 45, X[98]/47, XXX[2] (NR) | Yes | Yes | NR | 6.3 | 6 | 2 | 2 | ||
| Balen et al. (2010) | 1 | Antagonist | 28 | 45, X[93]/46, XX[7] (30) | Yes | Yes | 6.13 | 3.3 | NR | 12 | 9 | Oocytes used for FISH analysis | |
| 10 | 7 | ||||||||||||
| 30 | NA | Embryo preservation, resulting in 13 embryos | |||||||||||
| El-Shawarby et al. (2010) | 1 | Flare-up agonist | 22 | 45, X[86]/47, XXX[11]/46, XX[3] (NR) | Yes | Yes | 1.19 | 4.6 | 7 | 8 | 8 | ||
| Ito et al. (2020) | 1 | Antagonist Duostim | 23 | 45, X [13]/46, XX [87] (30) | Yes | Yes | 3.43 | 10.6 | 3 | 10 | 9 | ||
| 9 | 8 | ||||||||||||
| Azem et al. (2020) | 1 | Antagonist | 7 | 45, X[71]/47, XXX[29] (52) | Prepubertal | Prepubertal | 1.13 | 5.2 | 5 | 0 b | – | ||
| 3 | 6b | 6b | |||||||||||
| Strypstein et al. (2022) | 1 | Antagonist | 24 | 45, X[14]/46, XX[86] (NR) | Yes | Yes | 6.4 | 3.4 | 37 | 11 | 8 | ||
| 27 | 21 | ||||||||||||
| Ulrich et al. (2022) | 1 | Antagonist | 14 | Mosaic | NR | NR | <0.1 | 6 | 14 | 11 | 11 | In four stimulation cycles, of which the first was cancelled due to poor response. | |
Stimulation cycles without oocytes preserved are shown in bold.
a
Meta-phase II oocytes.
b
First cycle GnRH-agonist trigger and no oocytes retrieved, second cycle hCG trigger and six oocytes retrieved, which shows the inactivity of the hypothalamus–pituitary–ovarian axis in a prepubertal girl.
AFC, antral follicle count; AMH, anti-Müllerian hormone; N, number of cases; NR, not reported; TS, Turner syndrome.