Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Feb 27:11:105.
doi: 10.3389/fendo.2020.00105. eCollection 2020.

Management Strategies for POSEIDON Group 2

Sesh Kamal Sunkara  1 , G A Ramaraju  2 , Mohan Shashikant Kamath  3
Affiliations

Management Strategies for POSEIDON Group 2

Sesh Kamal Sunkara et al. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). .

Abstract

Although individualization of ovarian stimulation aims at maximal efficacy and safety in assisted reproductive treatments, in its current form it is far from ideal in achieving the desired success in women with a low prognosis. This could be due a failure to identify such women who are likely to have a low prognosis with currently used prognostic characteristics. Introduction of the patient-oriented strategies encompassing individualized oocyte number (POSEIDON) concept reinforces recognizing such low prognosis groups and stratifying in accordance with important prognostic factors. The POSEIDON concept provides a practical approach to the management of these women and is a useful tool for both counseling and clinical management. In this commentary, we focus on likely management strategies for POSEIDON group 2 criteria.

Keywords: IVF (ICSI); POSEIDON classification; POSEIDON group 2; poor responder; suboptimal responder.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Suggested management of POSEIDON group 2. OS, ovarian stimulation; LH, luteinising hormone; hCG, human chorionic gonadotrophin; GnRH, Gonadotrophin releasing hormone; PGT-A, pre implantation genetic testing-aneuploidy; RCT, randomized controlled trial.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Trounson AO, Leeton JF, Wood C, Webb J, Wood J. Pregnancies in humans by fertilization in vitro and embryo transfer in the controlled ovulatory cycle. Science. (1981) 212:681–2. 10.1126/science.7221557 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jones HW, Jr, Jones GS, Andrews MC, Acosta A, Bundren C, Garcia J, et al. . The program for in vitro fertilization at Norfolk. Fertil Steril. (1982). 38:14–21. 10.1016/S0015-0282(16)46390-9 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Garcia J, Acosta A, Andrews MC, Jones GS, Jones HW, Jr, Mantzavinos T, et al. . In vitro fertilization in Norfolk, Virginia, 1980-1983. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf. (1984) 1:24–8. 10.1007/BF01129616 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Surrey ES, Schoolcraft WB. Evaluating strategies for improving ovarian response of the poor responder undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. Fertil Steril. (2000) 73:667–76. 10.1016/S0015-0282(99)00630-5 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Polyzos NP, Devroey P. A systematic review of randomized trials for the treatment of poor ovarian responders: is there any light at the end of the tunnel? Fertil Steril. (2011) 96:1058–61. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.09.048 - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms