+ - . .-. .. 2013

30%30%12-15%25% Speroff L. 2006

, / , ( , ( ), 15-20% 2-3% , ,

() ()

- ,2009

, . , , . 624, 2008

,

35 Edward E. Wallach, 2005

50%

% 19708 70-80198016 60-70199028 50-60200036 50-60

/, 50-60 , . 4-6 / 40-50%!!!

.

Speroff L. 2006

Speroff L. 2006

/% / 1 012%124%226%

332%

426%

653%

2 40-45%

, , , ..

, ,

( ,) ( )

, , ,

( , ) , ... , , , Evidence-based guidelines for the investigation and medicaltreatment of recurrent miscarriage. E. Jauniaux, R. G.Farquharson, O. B.Christiansen, N Exalto 2006

, NK- , Multifactorial Etiology of Recurrent Miscarriage and Its Scientific and Clinical Implications

Ole B. Christiansen, Rudi Steffensen, Henriette S. Nielsen,Kim Varming 2008Gynecol Obstet Invest 2008;66:257267

: 3 (6-7%), (2%). 50% uterus didelphys 40% 30-40% 65%Speroff L. 2006

-

( )

, ( ) ( ) Speroff L. 2006

, Uterus didelphys ( 50% ), , . % . 80%. ( ) .

Speroff L. 2006

2008 .:Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Apr;198(4):357-66.Fibroids and reproductive outcomes: a systematic literature review from conception to delivery.Klatsky PC, Tran ND, Caughey AB, Fujimoto VY. , -0.5; 95% 0.3-0.8, ;

: 36.9% 41.1%; / 20.4% 12.9%. * ( , ) [Sunkara S. Khairy M., 2010];

,

,

, , IVF: . - 2010The effect of intramural fibroids without uterine cavity involvement on the outcome of IVF treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysisSesh Kamal Sunkara, Mohammed Khairy, Tarek El-Toukhy, Yacoub Khalaf and Arri Coomarasamy Human Reproduction 2010 25(2):418-429; : , .

, ??Ravina, JH, Vigneron, NC, Aymard, A, et al. Pregnancy after embolization of uterine myoma: report of 12 cases. Fertil Steril 2000; 73:1241. McLucas, B, Goodwin, S, Adler, L, et al. Pregnancy following uterine fibroid embolization. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2001; 74:1. Goldberg, J, Pereira, L, Berghella, V. Pregnancy after uterine artery embolization. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 100:869. Goldberg J, et al. Pregnancy outcomes after treatment for fibromyomata: uterine artery embolization versus laparoscopic myomectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191:18. Pron, G, Mocarski, E, Bennett, J, et al. Pregnancy after uterine artery embolization for leiomyomata: the ontario multicenter trial. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105:67. Carpenter, TT, Walker, WJ. Pregnancy following uterine artery embolisation for symptomatic fibroids: a series of 26 completed pregnancies. BJOG 2005; 112:321. Goodwin, SC, Bradley, LD, Lipman, JC, et al. Uterine artery embolization versus myomectomy: a multicenter comparative study. Fertil Steril 2006; 85:14. Walker, WJ, McDowell, SJ. Pregnancy after uterine artery embolization for leiomyomata: a series of 56 completed pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 195:1266. Mara, M, Maskova, J, Fucikova, Z, et al. Midterm clinical and first reproductive results of a randomized controlled trial comparing uterine fibroid embolization and myomectomy. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2008; 31:73. Pinto Pabon, I, Magret, JP, Unzurrunzaga, EA, et al. Pregnancy after uterine fibroid embolization: follow-up of 100 patients embolized using tris-acryl gelatin microspheres. Fertil Steril 2008; 90:2356. Homer, H, Saridogan, E. Uterine artery embolization for fibroids is associated with an increased risk of miscarriage. Fertil Steril 2009

? , Obstetric outcomes after treatment of fibroids by uterine artery embolization: a systematic reviewShilpi Sud, Abha Maheshwari, Siladitya Bhattacharya Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology 2009, Vol. 4, No. 4, Pages 429-441 57.8% (137/237) 77.4% (1759/2273) (p < 0.001). /, , . . NB! , : , !!!

( , ...)NB!

/ 40-80% 50-90% / 7-23% E. Jauniaux, R. G.Farquharson, O. B.Christiansen, N Exalto 2006, Speroff L.2006

- , .

http://www.fetalmedicine.com/fmf/online-education/05-cervical-assessment/

18

- : /, - : 2,5 2,5 2,5 / 40% : , , , , Cervical insufficiency. 2003 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists - Medical Specialty Society 624, 2007

75% / , 30% / 3% .- 90% - 10% -

!!! / ,

The ESHRE Capri Workshop Group, 2008

4-8%.

.

The ESHRE Capri Workshop Group, 2008

(13,14,15,21,22) ( , )

- - - , - - - ,

( ), ( , /, ).

. . 24. 2 / ( 8-9 ). . 8-9 , . : 1 - 15, 2 15.

: 45,XX,der(15;15)(q10;q10)

7-8 . .

.

: 46XY100%

2 5% (12%) , 3-9 . 15%-20% - 90% ( , )D. Cohen, S. P. Berger 2009

, D. Cohen, S. P. Berger 2009

2006. (). : - - - 10 - ( 34) - 3 10 . - 34 - IgM IgG , , , , 12 , ; - , , , 12 .

Mala Kaul, Doruk Erkan, Lisa Sammaritano, 2007

75-85/, 5-10 / 2 /, ()

3.0-4.0 34 .

- Rheumatology 2010 (334) + , ( % )

D.Cohen, S.Berger, BMJ, V340, 2010, Diagnosis and management of the antiphospholipid syndromeA. Mark, M. Cheung, Rheumatology 2010P.Ziakas, M. Pavlou, Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Jun;115

70-80% ( 2007. 54%)

( , , , ), (, )

!!! !!! ()

,

,

se Rasmussen1, Pernille Ravn 2004

- G1691A 2-15%3-8 () G20210 2-3 %3 MTHFR 11 %2,5-4 0,02 %25-50 0,2-0,3 %10-15 S 0,1-0,2 %2 VIII -5-15%5

: .. : - G20210 () - activated protrombine C resistance - - ,S,

, ,

http://hubpages.com/hub/What-Is-Thrombophilia

LA (NK, -) - , - (Mannan-binding lectine) ?

L.Speroff 2006E. Jauniaux, R. G.Farquharson, O. B.Christiansen, N Exalto 2006

: , ---, !!!R. G.Farquharson, O. B.Christiansen, N Exalto 2009

-

/ .

-

, , , - .rck, J.Kalinka, J.Szekeres-Bartho, K.Wilch, , .., ..,

. ???Progestogen for treating threatened miscarriageCochrane Review by Wahabi HA, Fayed AA, Esmaeil SA, Al Zeidan RA 2011 . , . , . , -

- 50- 10- , - .2010

: ( ) ( ) (, )

7 (< 10 ng/mL 31.8 nmol/L) - . , < 30 ng/mL - . B.Sonntag, Clinical Endocrinology (2012) 77, 500507

100% , . . .

Glock 1995, K. Taniguchi 2004, Dal 2004, Hiroshi Tamura 2008B.Sonntag, Clinical Endocrinology (2012) : .. 2 , 1, 203-207

.. . , , .

- (, ) (, , , ) ( )

. 2006

. ++++++++. +++ ++/+++ /+/+++/+++ +/++++/+++ +++/+++ . ++. ++++++, +++++++++++++++/ 1,3+++++/ 1,5++++++++/+++

. , - . , - 14 26 - 10 2 , 2-3 . ( 2/10+ 10 14 26 )

- - : , .

. /, ().

. / ().E. Jauniaux, R. G.Farquharson, O. B.Christiansen, N Exalto 2006

30-34%,

5 - 15% , 75%

- AZFa, AZFb, AZFc , R.H. Martin, 2008

, ? 4 2

- Tender and loving care

( ) P. L. Magee;A. K. Macleod;P. Tata;L. Regan 2003

: 2 , 1. , , , , 17-, , 7 , , , , , . ( , , , ) + , . ( , ) , , , , , . .: NK-, HLA, ,

C !

*We use this simple model to describe the process.There are sensitive and resistant genotypes in the population.

Example: Could be metabolism, could be DNA repair, could be receptor that mediates viral infection.

1) Under conditions of no exposure genotype has no impact on risk2) Under exposure conditions (could be viral, parasites)then you observe some difference in risk for genotypes.3) At low exposure you only observe effects in susceptible population.There is data that supports this model.