Skip to main content
Download PDF

Intra-ovarian injection of autologous menstrual blood-derived-mesenchymal stromal cells: a safe and promising method to improve pregnancy rate in poor ovarian responders

Stem Cell Research & Therapy volume 16, Article number: 171 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Poor ovarian response (POR) significantly reduces the success rates of fertility treatments. This study investigates the long-term efficacy and potential complications associated with autologous menstrual blood-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (MenSCs) therapy in improving fertility outcomes for women with POR.

Objective

To evaluate the long-term efficacy and potential complications associated with MenSC therapy in improving fertility outcomes for women with POR.

Methods

This longitudinal, single-center retrospective observational study included 105 POR patients who received autologous MenSC injections from August 2018 to September 2021. Participants were monitored for at least 3 years, and demographic, menstrual, and fertility data were collected. Potential complications were also assessed during this period. Statistical analyses were performed to determine pregnancy rates and possible complications.

Results

The average age of participants at the time of injection was 37.91 years. During the follow-up period, 36.19% of women became pregnant, with a live birth rate of 30.48% per treatment cycle. The treatment showed no significant difference in pregnancy rates between women with regular and irregular menstrual cycles. The spontaneous pregnancy rate was also notably higher within the first three months post-injection. No significant complications such as endometriosis, ovarian malignancies, or autoimmune disorders were observed. Only one case of an ovarian cyst, which resolved without intervention, was reported. MenSC treatment did not increase the risk of congenital anomalies or infant mortality.

Conclusion

Intra-ovarian injection of MenSCs is a safe and promising method for improving pregnancy outcomes in women with POR.

Introduction

Poor ovarian response (POR) refers to a suboptimal response of the ovaries during the in vitro fertilization (IVF) or other assisted reproductive techniques. [1] According to Bologna criteria developed by the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) in 2011, at least two of the following criteria are necessary to be considered as a poor ovarian responder:

  1. 1.

    Advanced maternal age (> 40 years).

  2. 2.

    Previous POR: cancelation of cycles or retrieval of three or fewer oocytes using a conventional stimulation protocol.

  3. 3.

    Abnormal ovarian reserve tests (ORT):

  4. 4.

    Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH): Less than 0.5–1.1 ng/ml

  5. 5.

    Antral follicle count (AFC): Less than 5–7 follicles. [2]

Poor ovarian response presents significant challenges for individuals undergoing fertility treatments. Reduced chance of pregnancy: due to a decrease in mature follicles, Higher cancellation rate because of Inadequate follicle development, Financial burden as Multiple IVF attempts can be costly, and Emotional toll of repeated IVF failures can be significant. Addressing POR remains a complex task, providing compassionate care and support to those dealing with poor ovarian response is crucial. [3]

Despite the challenges, researchers and clinicians seek different treatment options including Growth hormone supplementations, Controlled Ovarian Hyperstimulation, adjunct therapy, acupuncture, and intra-ovarian injection of platelet-rich plasma. [4,5,6,7,8]

Numerous studies have explored the potential of stem cells in improving ovarian function. Menstrual blood-derived stem cells (MenSCs) have emerged as a fascinating source of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) with unique properties. [9] Although they may not directly differentiate to follicular cells, MenSCs play a crucial role in modulating immune responses. They can suppress inflammation and promote tissue repair in inflammatory diseases, tumors, and tissue injuries. [9, 10] MenSCs hold promise for treating infertility and ovarian dysfunction. Their ability to enhance folliculogenesis, regulate angiogenesis, and reduce ovarian stromal fibrosis makes them valuable for improving ovarian health. [11] MenSCs contribute to tissue repair and potential fertility restoration by improving the ovarian stromal environment. [12] MSCs can be sourced from various locations in the body, including bone marrow, adipose tissue, umbilical cord, and menstrual blood. [13] Unlike bone marrow or adipose tissue, MenSCs can be collected monthly during menstruation without invasive procedures, ethical concerns, and autoimmune rejection. [14]

In the previous phases of our clinical trial, we concluded that potential hazards associated with MSC application, particularly in specific cellular microenvironments, necessitate careful long-term monitoring and follow-up assessments. We emphasized the need for further randomized parallel studies with larger sample sizes and extended follow-up periods to definitively establish the impact of MenSCs on ovarian function and live birth rates. In this follow-up study, conducted years after the initial trial, our goal was to adhere to these recommendations by monitoring our patients' long-term efficacy and potential complications of MenSC therapy. [15, 16]

Method

Study design

This investigation constitutes a longitudinal, national single-center retrospective observational study encompassing all patients diagnosed with POR (n = 105) who underwent autologous MenSCs administration across three distinct phases of clinical trials from August 2018 to September 2021 [15, 16]. The detailed study protocol, selection criteria, and methodologies of cell therapy for POR patients have been articulated in preceding publications [15, 16]. Authorization for the clinical trial protocol and the associated consent documentation was obtained from the Biomedical Research Ethics Committee of the Academic Center for Education, Culture, and Research (ACECR). Patients participated in clinical evaluations at the Avicenna Fertility Center approximately at intervals of 3 months, 6 months, and 1-year post-cell therapy. Subsequently, they were directed to local facilities for annual evaluations, and pertinent medical information was extracted from their medical records. Following a minimum follow-up duration of 3 years (ranging from 3 to 6 years), a comprehensive questionnaire was developed, and a trained midwifery professional contacted all patients to collect the requisite information.

Data collection

We collected demographic and relevant information from electronic patient records and our previous publications. This included details such as age, number of injections, injection dates, pre/ post injection menstrual states, and IVF outcomes. [15, 16]

Every participant was assessed utilizing a long-term safety and efficacy assessment methodology. This technique involved analyzing the patient's medical history, imaging investigations, laboratory test results, and self-reported information to ascertain any problems, menstruation status, fertility status, pregnancy outcomes, and neonatal follow-up information. Two specialists meticulously examined the checklist items, leveraging their expertise in patient complications and fertility outcomes during the assessment. Before the initiation of interviews, informed oral consent was obtained from all participants, who were apprised of the study's objectives, their entitlements, and the voluntary nature of their participation. The confidentiality of the participants was assured, and they were invited to pose inquiries before granting their consent.

Study inquiries

The follow-up protocol encompassing the checklist entailed inquiries regarding the overall survival rates of both mothers and infants, along with newly diagnosed conditions in patients, including but not limited to ovarian cysts, ovarian carcinoma, endometrioma, endometriosis, ovarian torsion, and breast cancer. Furthermore, we solicited information regarding pelvic inflammatory disease, systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis, other autoimmune disorders, and any subjective health issues that may manifest as potential long-term complications.

In instances where an infant was delivered as a result of this methodology, we sought information concerning the growth and physical health of the infants as well as potential adverse outcomes, which included mortality within the initial year, childhood malignancies (such as leukemia and lymphoma), thyroid dysfunction, congenital anomalies, autism spectrum disorders, and other self-reported health concerns.

To evaluate menstrual health, we probed into the regularity of menstrual cycles and the menopausal status of individuals. To monitor fertility rates and pregnancy outcomes, we inquired about spontaneous pregnancies and pregnancies achieved through Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART).

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses and graphical representations were performed using the R statistical package. Demographic data, menstrual status, and pregnancy outcomes were summarized using descriptive statistics. Continuous variables were reported as mean ± standard deviation (SD), while categorical variables were expressed as frequencies and percentages. Associations between categorical variables were evaluated using Pearson’s Chi-squared test with Yates’ continuity correction. All statistical tests were two-tailed, with a significance level set at p < 0.05.

Results

Participant demographics

A total of 105 women who received intraovarian injections of MenSCs due to poor ovarian response were monitored. The average age of these patients was 37.91 years (ranging from 24 to 45) at the time of injection, which increased to 41.98 years during the follow-up period. Of the participants, 70 received a single injection, while 35 received two injections. The average duration of follow-up from the last injection was 3.72 years, with the minimum follow-up being 2.5 years and the maximum extending to 6 years Table 1.

Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of women received MenSC injection
Full size table

Menstrual status

At the time of the injection, 91 women were experiencing regular menstrual cycles. During the follow-up period, 12 of these women (13.1%) reported irregular menstrual patterns, and 1 woman (1.9%) had entered menopause. Of the 24 women who initially had irregular menstrual cycles, 6 (25%) reported a return to regular cycles at follow-up, while 4 (16%) had undergone menopause Table 1.

Fertility and pregnancy outcomes

Among 105 poor ovarian responders, 38 women (36.19%) became pregnant, with 27 achieving pregnancy spontaneously, 13 through IVF, and 2 through both methods. 27 women (25.7%) with poor ovarian response became pregnant spontaneously after the injection. One woman became pregnant twice, and another became pregnant three times. The median time to spontaneous pregnancy was 3 months post-injection, with a range from 1 to 24 months. Of the 54 women who underwent IVF after their injection, 13 (24%) became pregnant. One case had twin pregnancies. The median time after injection for a successful IVF was 5,5 months, with a range from 2 to 13 months Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Pregnancy outcome by method. Distribution of Pregnancy Outcomes by Months After MenSC Injection. The median time to pregnancy after MenSC injection was 3 months for spontaneous pregnancies and approximately 5.5 months for IVF pregnancies

Full size image

Impact of Age on Outcomes: To assess the impact of age on pregnancy outcomes, patients were divided into two groups: under 35 and 35 or older. Among the 23 women under 35, 12 (52.17%) became pregnant. In contrast, among the 82 women aged 35 or older, 26 (31.7%) became pregnant. Pearson’s Chi-squared test with Yates’ continuity correction indicated no significant difference between the two groups (X-squared = 2.4321, df = 1, p-value = 0.1189). As shown in Fig. 2, the box plot provides a visual summary of the age distribution among the participants. The median age for pregnancy was 36 years, with the whiskers extending from age 24 to age 42, highlighting the overall age spread Table 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Age Distribution of Women with POR. Age Distribution of Women Who Got Pregnant Following MenSC Injection. The ages of women who became pregnant after MenSC injection ranged from 24 to 43 years, with a median age of 36 years

Full size image
Table 2 The impact of different factors on stem cell treatment outcome
Full size table

Menstrual Status Impact on Outcome The impact of menstrual status on treatment outcomes was assessed by comparing pregnancy rates between women with regular and irregular cycles. It was found that, among the 91 patients with regular cycles at the time of injection, 33 (36.26%) became pregnant. In contrast, pregnancy was achieved by 5 out of 14 women (35.7%) with irregular cycles. No significant difference between the two groups was indicated by Pearson’s Chi-squared test with Yates’ continuity correction (X-squared = 6.0062e-31, df = 1, p-value = 1) Table 2.

Injection Type Distribution 70 women received a single injection, with 29 achieving pregnancy. On the other hand, 35 women received a second injection after the first one, and 9 of them became pregnant. (Table 2).

Complications

Among all the women who were followed up,1 case of an ovarian cyst during pregnancy was reported, which resolved after pregnancy and by the time of follow-up. There were no reports of other complications such as endometriosis, endometrioma, ovarian malignancy, ovarian torsion, pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), ectopic pregnancy (EP), or autoimmune diseases Table 3.

Table 3 Women, Fetal, and Neonatal Complications Following MenSC Injection
Full size table

Baby outcome

Of the 105 women who were part of the research, 43 pregnancies were documented, with 38 of them becoming pregnant, some more than once. Out of these pregnancies, 12 resulted in abortion, while 31 pregnancies were successful, leading to live births. Notably, one of these successful pregnancies resulted in twins, bringing the total number of live births to 32. Based on the total number of women, the live birth rates each treatment cycle was determined to be 30.48%, and the live birth rate per pregnancy, which represents the proportion of successful births among all pregnancies, was 74.42%. Despite the possibility of some pregnancy losses, these results show a positive live birth outcome, with most pregnancies ending in live births Table 3.

Discussion

This study explored the outcomes of intraovarian injections of MenSCs in 105 women with poor ovarian response, with a focus on pregnancy, live birth rates, and potential complications. Notably, no significant long-term problems were noted over an average follow-up time of 3.72 years. Only one case of an ovarian cyst during pregnancy was documented, which resolved without intervention. There were no instances of endometriosis, ovarian malignancies, torsion, pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancies, or autoimmune disorders. These findings suggest that intraovarian injections of MenSCs are a safe, long-term treatment option for women with poor ovarian response, with a low complication profile even years after treatment.

In terms of fertility outcomes, 36.19% of women became pregnant, with a live birth rate of 30.48% per treatment cycle and 74.42% per pregnancy. The data also highlight that age was a key determinant of success, with women under 35 showing significantly higher odds of pregnancy. In contrast, menstrual status (regular vs. irregular) did not significantly impact pregnancy outcomes.

When exploring new methods for treating poor ovarian response, it’s essential to consider factors such as efficacy, safety, accessibility, and cost-effectiveness. Stem cell therapy has demonstrated promise in treating infertility. [17] The remarkable ability of Menstrual Stem Cells (MenSCs) to undergo proliferation and differentiation makes them an excellent choice for enhancing ovarian function in the long term. These cells can differentiate into various cell types, including follicular cells and even oocyte-like cells, which positions them as a valuable option for addressing diminished ovarian reserve. [18, 19]

Our study followed 105 women who underwent intraovarian injection of MenSCs due to poor ovarian response. While a meta-analysis by Máté Éliás et al. (2023) indicated a spontaneous pregnancy rate of 7% following intra-ovarian injection of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in poor ovarian responders, our study found a significantly higher spontaneous pregnancy rate of 25.7% following intraovarian injection of MenSCs. [20] Another meta-analysis by Vahabi Dastjerdi et al. on the effect of intraovarian PRP injection showed a 5% rate of spontaneous pregnancy in poor ovarian responders. [21] This difference could be attributed to the fact that, Unlike MenSCs, which can proliferate and differentiate, PRP primarily works by releasing growth factors that can temporarily enhance ovarian function. [22, 23] The pregnancy rate achieved through IVF after injection of MenSCs was 24%, with a live birth rate of 16.6%. In comparison, a study by Cakiroglu et al. that included 510 women with poor ovarian response who were treated with intraovarian injection of autologous PRP reported a pregnancy rate of 17% and a live birth rate of 11.4%. [24] A systematic review of 10 studies on women with POR treated with intra-ovarian PRP injection showed a clinical pregnancy rate of 25.4% and a live birth rate of 16.6%. [8] In our study, we achieved higher rates, with a 36.15% pregnancy rate and a 30.48% live birth rate. These findings suggest that the intraovarian injection of menstrual blood-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (MenSCs) may be more effective than PRP treatment for women with POR.

In this study, it was observed that women who received a single injection had a higher pregnancy rate (41.4%, 29 out of 70) compared to those who received a double injection (25.71%, 9 out of 35). While this suggests that a single injection may be associated with a higher likelihood of pregnancy, it is important to note that the second injection was typically administered to women who did not achieve pregnancy after the first injection, often following their insistence. These women's chances of becoming pregnant may have been affected by their initial worse prognosis. Therefore, the lower pregnancy rate in the double injection group does not necessarily indicate that two injections were less effective. On the contrary, the fact that some women did conceive after the second injection suggests that it had a positive impact on pregnancy outcomes for those who initially had a poor response. This highlights the potential value of a second injection as a supplementary option for women who do not respond to the initial treatment.

Our analysis showed that menstrual status did not significantly impact pregnancy outcomes. Among women with regular cycles, 36.26% became pregnant, compared to 35.7% of those with irregular cycles (p = 1). Even women with irregular cycles had comparable pregnancy rates, indicating that treatment may be effective regardless of cycle regularity. This highlights the need for further research to identify other factors that may play a more critical role in fertility outcomes.

The median time to spontaneous pregnancy after MenSCs injection was observed to be 3 months, and the median time to pregnancy through IVF was 5 months, aligning with most studies on PRP injections that report effects within 1 to 6 months. [8, 25,26,27]

Interestingly, a large proportion of spontaneous pregnancies occurred within the first 3 months following the MenSCs injection. It could be wise to wait at least three months before starting IVF therapy in light of this tendency. This finding implies that MenSCs' beneficial effects on ovarian function may start to show around this period. Starting IVF too early may overlook the potential for spontaneous pregnancy, as ovarian responsiveness could improve naturally within this window. Therefore, a 3-month waiting period post-injection before considering IVF may optimize the treatment's impact on fertility outcomes, allowing for the possibility of natural conception while still leaving IVF as a subsequent option for those who do not conceive spontaneously.

The lack of long-term follow-up studies on PRP injections makes it challenging to compare the long-term efficacy of these treatments. However, our findings show that several cases of MenSCs injections resulted in pregnancies even after one year, with two cases achieving pregnancy after two years. This suggests that MenSCs may have a prolonged effect on ovarian function compared to PRP. Future research should focus on extended follow-up periods to better understand the sustained impact of both PRP and MenSCs injections on fertility outcomes in poor ovarian responders. [20, 28]

Complications

MenSCs exhibit impressive differentiation capabilities, including the potential to become adipocytes, chondrocytes, osteogenic cells, fibroblasts, endometrial cells, and germ cell-like structures. [29, 30] Retrograde menstruation, a widely accepted pathophysiological mechanism of endometriosis, involves the backward flow of shed endometrial cells. [31] Hypotheses suggest that mesenchymal stromal stem cells from menstrual blood, carried by retrograde menstruation, play a role in endometriosis development by differentiating outside the uterus. [32, 33] Contrary to initial expectations, our findings suggest that injecting these cells into the ovaries does not increase the risk of endometrioma and endometriosis for the patient. Recent research highlights endometriosis as a systemic disease influenced by various factors. [34] These include immune system dysregulation, disrupted signaling pathways, and hormonal imbalances. [35,36,37] Notably, MenSCs exhibit distinct characteristics between women with and without endometriosis, including differences in gene expression, morphology, cluster of differentiation (CD) markers, and immunomodulatory molecules. [38,39,40] This suggests that injecting MenSCs derived from women with endometriosis could potentially cause endometriosis. [41] Consequently, cautious utilization of MenSCs in patients with endometriosis is crucial, and further comprehensive studies are warranted.

Fibrosis is a potential complication and adverse effect of stem cell injection, with reports indicating liver, cardiac, and renal interstitial fibrosis due to the potential differentiation of stem cells into fibroblast cells. [42, 43] A study by Gu et al. reported that ovarian fibrosis, which can manifest as decreased ovarian function, is caused by the excessive proliferation of fibroblasts and their activity in producing transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β) and extracellular matrix (ECM). [44] In our study, we observed that a noteworthy portion of women with initially irregular menstrual cycles reported regular cycles at follow-up, suggesting a positive impact of the injection on menstrual regularity and ovarian function. However, the development of irregular cycles or menopause in some women with initially regular cycles highlights the natural progression of ovarian aging and the variability in individual responses. [45, 46] In our follow-up to identify any long-term complications, there were no reports of issues as a probable consequence of intra-ovarian MenSCs injection, except for a case of an ovarian cyst during pregnancy, which resolved on its own. Studies indicate that ovarian cysts are common during pregnancy, and the majority of these cysts are benign and resolve spontaneously. [47,48,49]

Our findings suggest that MenSCs treatment does not carry the same increased risk of infant complications observed with other treatment methods. This underscores the potential safety of MenSCs therapy not only for the mothers but also for the infants born through this method.

A comprehensive study conducted in Sweden revealed that babies conceived through ART have a 45% increased risk of mortality within the first year of life, depending on the specific type of ART, when compared to naturally conceived infants. [50] Our study found that none of the babies born, whether through spontaneous pregnancy or IVF, died within the first year.

Additionally, research indicates that infants conceived through ART have a slightly elevated risk of nonchromosomal birth defects compared to naturally conceived babies. [51] Major congenital anomalies are generally recognized at birth, while minor ones might go unnoticed initially, with most significant congenital anomalies typically identified during the first year of life. [52] In our study, there were no reports of congenital anomalies, defects, or other problems.

Strengths and limitations

This study has several strengths that support the conclusion of the safety and long-term efficacy of intraovarian MenSCs injection. The number of participants who underwent the procedure, along with the extensive follow-up period, provided robust data to assess both short-term and long-term outcomes. All potential complications, based on the differentiation capabilities of MenSCs, were thoroughly considered and investigated. Additionally, all babies conceived through this method were closely monitored to ensure there were no negative outcomes associated with the intervention for the babies.

However, this study also has some limitations. One significant limitation is the lack of long-term pregnancy outcome data for the control group from previous studies, which could have provided a more comprehensive comparison. Another limitation of this study was the inability to invite all participants to our center for direct, in-person evaluation of long-term complications. Many of the women were residing in various cities, and access to the center was limited. As a result, we relied on medical follow-up sessions conducted over the years through their local healthcare providers and supplemented this with self-reported telephone interviews. While this approach allowed us to maintain contact with participants and collect necessary data, it may not have been as precise or comprehensive as regular in-person assessments conducted at our center. Future studies would benefit from more consistent and standardized follow-up methods, such as in-person visits, to ensure a more accurate evaluation of long-term outcomes.

Conclusion

The use of MenSCs represents a safe and promising avenue for improving pregnancy outcomes in women with poor ovarian response. However robust evidence is needed to validate its efficacy and safety. Rigorous studies and clinical trials are essential to establish MenSC therapy’s effectiveness. We encourage researchers to consider some suggestions including:

  • Cell Differentiation Exploring MenSC differentiation into specific cell types (e.g., follicular structures or fibroblasts) before injection may enhance therapeutic outcomes.

  • Co-Administration of Factors Co-administering cytokines or growth factors alongside MenSCs could optimize tissue repair.

  • Adjunct Therapies Beyond intra-ovarian injection, adjunct therapies should be explored.

  • Personalized Approach Tailoring therapy based on individual patient profiles may maximize success.

Availability of data and materials

All of the data generated and analyzed during this study are included in the manuscript.

Abbreviations

POR:

Poor ovarian response

MenSCs:

Menstrual blood-derived stromal cells

IVF:

In vitro fertilization

ORT:

Ovarian reserve tests

AMH:

Anti-Müllerian hormone

AFC:

Antral follicular count

MSC:

Mesenchymal stem cell

ART:

Assisted reproductive technology

PID:

Pelvic inflammatory disease

EP:

Ectopic pregnancy

PRP:

Platelet-rich plasma

CD:

Cluster of differentiation

ECM:

Extracellular matrix

TGF-β:

Transforming growth factor beta

ECM:

Extracellular matrix

References

  1. Abu-Musa A, Haahr T, Humaidan P. Novel physiology and definition of poor ovarian response; clinical recommendations. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(6):2110.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Ferraretti A, La Marca A, Fauser B, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L, et al. ESHRE consensus on the definition of ‘poor response to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(7):1616–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Giannelou P, Simopoulou M, Grigoriadis S, Makrakis E, Kontogeorgi A, Pantou A, et al. The conundrum of poor ovarian response: from diagnosis to treatment. Diagnostics. 2020;10(9):687.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Lin G, Zhong X, Li S, Xu L. Clinical evidence of growth hormone for infertile women with diminished ovarian reserve undergoing IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Endocrinol. 2023;14:1215755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Duan X, Li Z, Li M, Ma X. Analysis of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation protocols in women over 35 years old with poor ovarian response: a real-world study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023;23(1):813.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Wang R-R, Su M-H, Liu L-Y, Lai Y-Y, Guo X-L, Gan D, et al. Systematic review of acupuncture to improve ovarian function in women with poor ovarian response. Front Endocrinol. 2023;14:1028853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Di Guardo F, Pluchino N, Drakopoulos P. Treatment modalities for poor ovarian responders. Ther Adv Reprod Health. 2023;17:26334941221147464.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Wu L, Su F, Luo P, Dong Q, Ma M, Ye G. The efficacy of platelet rich plasma on women with poor ovarian response: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Platelets. 2024;35(1):2292612.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mohamed Rasheed ZB, Nordin F, Wan Kamarul Zaman WS, Tan Y-F, Abd Aziz NH. Autologous human mesenchymal stem cell-based therapy in infertility: New strategies and future perspectives. Biology. 2023;12(1):108.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Zhang S, Yahaya BH, Pan Y, Liu Y, Lin J. Menstrual blood-derived endometrial stem cell, a unique and promising alternative in the stem cell-based therapy for chemotherapy-induced premature ovarian insufficiency. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2023;14(1):327.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Kuchakzadeh F, Ai J, Ebrahimi-Barough S. Tissue engineering and stem cell-based therapeutic strategies for premature ovarian insufficiency. Regen Ther. 2024;25:10–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wang Z, Wang Y, Yang T, Li J, Yang X. Study of the reparative effects of menstrual-derived stem cells on premature ovarian failure in mice. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2017;8:1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Costela-Ruiz VJ, Melguizo-Rodríguez L, Bellotti C, Illescas-Montes R, Stanco D, Arciola CR, et al. Different sources of mesenchymal stem cells for tissue regeneration: a guide to identifying the most favorable one in orthopedics and dentistry applications. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(11):6356.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Zhao Y-x, Chen S-r, Su P-p, Huang F-h, Shi Y-c, Shi Q-y, et al. Using mesenchymal stem cells to treat female infertility: an update on female reproductive diseases. Stem Cells Int. 2019;2019(1):9071720.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Zafardoust S, Kazemnejad S, Darzi M, Fathi-Kazerooni M, Rastegari H, Mohammadzadeh A. Improvement of pregnancy rate and live birth rate in poor ovarian responders by intraovarian administration of autologous menstrual blood derived-mesenchymal stromal cells: phase I/II clinical trial. Stem cell Rev Rep. 2020;16:755–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Zafardoust S, Kazemnejad S, Fathi-Kazerooni M, Darzi M, Sadeghi MR, Sadeghi Tabar A, et al. The effects of intraovarian injection of autologous menstrual blood-derived mesenchymal stromal cells on pregnancy outcomes in women with poor ovarian response. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2023;14(1):332.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Chang CL. Facilitation of ovarian response by mechanical force: latest insight on fertility improvement in women with poor ovarian response or primary ovarian insufficiency. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(19):14751.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Manshadi MD, Navid S, Hoshino Y, Daneshi E, Noory P, Abbasi M. The effects of human menstrual blood stem cells-derived granulosa cells on ovarian follicle formation in a rat model of premature ovarian failure. Microsc Res Tech. 2019;82(6):635–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sheikholeslami A, Kalhor N, Sheykhhasan M, Jannatifar R, Sahraei SS. Evaluating differentiation potential of the human menstrual blood-derived stem cells from infertile women into oocyte-like cells. Reprod Biol. 2021;21(1): 100477.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Éliás M, Kónya M, Kekk Z, Turan C, das Virgens IPA, Tóth R, et al. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) treatment of the ovaries significantly improves fertility parameters and reproductive outcomes in diminished ovarian reserve patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Ovar Res. 2024;17(1):104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Vahabi Dastjerdi M, Sheibani S, Taheri M, Hezarcheshmeh FK, Jahangirian J, Jazayeri M, et al. Efficacy of intra-ovarian injection of autologous platelet-rich plasma in women with poor responders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024;309(6):2323–38.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pavlovic V, Ciric M, Jovanovic V, Stojanovic P. Platelet rich plasma: a short overview of certain bioactive components. Open Med. 2016;11(1):242–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hosseinisadat R, Nejad AF, Mohammadi F. Intra-ovarian infusion of autologous platelet-rich plasma in women with poor ovarian reserve: a before and after study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2023;280:60–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cakiroglu Y, Yuceturk A, Karaosmanoglu O, Kopuk SY, Korun ZEU, Herlihy N, et al. Ovarian reserve parameters and IVF outcomes in 510 women with poor ovarian response (POR) treated with intraovarian injection of autologous platelet rich plasma (PRP). Aging. 2022;14(6):2513.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Safarova S, Akdulum MFC, Guler I, Bozkurt N, Erdem A, Karabacak RO. Does platelet-rich plasma treatment increase in vitro fertilization (IVF) success in the infertile population? Cureus. 2023;15(10).

  26. Pantos K, Simopoulou M, Pantou A, Rapani A, Tsioulou P, Nitsos N, et al. A case series on natural conceptions resulting in ongoing pregnancies in menopausal and prematurely menopausal women following platelet-rich plasma treatment. Cell Transpl. 2019;28(9–10):1333–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Pacu I, Zygouropoulos N, Dimitriu M, Rosu G, Ionescu CA. Use of platelet-rich plasma in the treatment of infertility in poor responders in assisted human reproduction procedures. Exp Ther Med. 2021;22(6):1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Adiga PK, Marconi N, N R, Vitthala S. Effect of intra-ovarian injection of platelet-rich plasma on the patients with a poor ovarian response (POR) or premature ovarian insufficiency (POI): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Middle East Fertil Soc J. 2024;29(1):24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Chen L, Qu J, Cheng T, Chen X, Xiang C. Menstrual blood-derived stem cells: toward therapeutic mechanisms, novel strategies, and future perspectives in the treatment of diseases. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2019;10:1–12.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Lai D, Guo Y, Zhang Q, Chen Y, Xiang C. Differentiation of human menstrual blood-derived endometrial mesenchymal stem cells into oocyte-like cells. Acta Biochim Biophys Sin. 2016;48(11):998–1005.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lamceva J, Uljanovs R, Strumfa I. The main theories on the pathogenesis of endometriosis. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(5):4254.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Signorile PG, Viceconte R, Baldi A. New insights in pathogenesis of endometriosis. Front Med. 2022;9: 879015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Cordeiro MR, Carvalhos CA, Figueiredo-Dias M. The emerging role of menstrual-blood-derived stem cells in endometriosis. Biomedicines. 2022;11(1):39.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Taylor HS, Kotlyar AM, Flores VA. Endometriosis is a chronic systemic disease: clinical challenges and novel innovations. The Lancet. 2021;397(10276):839–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Agostinis C, Balduit A, Mangogna A, Zito G, Romano F, Ricci G, et al. Immunological basis of the endometriosis: the complement system as a potential therapeutic target. Front Immunol. 2021;11: 599117.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Zhang M, Xu T, Tong D, Li S, Yu X, Liu B, et al. Research advances in endometriosis-related signaling pathways: a review. Biomed Pharmacother. 2023;164: 114909.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Marquardt RM, Kim TH, Shin J-H, Jeong J-W. Progesterone and estrogen signaling in the endometrium: What goes wrong in endometriosis? Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(15):3822.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Nikoo S, Ebtekar M, Jeddi-Tehrani M, Shervin A, Bozorgmehr M, Vafaei S, et al. Menstrual blood-derived stromal stem cells from women with and without endometriosis reveal different phenotypic and functional characteristics. Mol Hum Reprod. 2014;20(9):905–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Sahraei SS, Kowsari A, Asl FD, Sheykhhasan M, Naserpoor L, Sheikholeslami A. Evaluating the effect of conditioned medium from endometrial stem cells on endometriosis-derived endometrial stem cells. Anat Cell Biol. 2022;55(1):100–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Sahraei SS, Davoodi Asl F, Kalhor N, Sheykhhasan M, Fazaeli H, Moud SS, et al. A comparative study of gene expression in menstrual blood-derived stromal cells between endometriosis and healthy women. Biomed Res Int. 2022;2022(1):7053521.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Zhang Y, He T, Lin T, Guo Q, Huo C, Roberts SZ, et al. Novel in vivo endometriotic models associated eutopic endometrium by implanting menstrual blood-derived stromal cells from patients with endometriosis. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):8347.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Baranovskii DS, Klabukov ID, Arguchinskaya NV, Yakimova AO, Kisel AA, Yatsenko EM, et al. Adverse events, side effects and complications in mesenchymal stromal cell-based therapies. Stem Cell Investig. 2022. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.21037/sci-2022-025.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Kim J-S, Lee J-H, Kwon O, Cho J-H, Choi J-Y, Park S-H, et al. Rapid deterioration of preexisting renal insufficiency after autologous mesenchymal stem cell therapy. Kidney Res Clin Pract. 2017;36(2):200.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Gu M, Wang Y, Yu Y. Ovarian fibrosis: molecular mechanisms and potential therapeutic targets. J Ovar Res. 2024;17(1):139.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Broekmans F, Soules M, Fauser B. Ovarian aging: mechanisms and clinical consequences. Endocr Rev. 2009;30(5):465–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Wang X, Wang L, Xiang W. Mechanisms of ovarian aging in women: a review. J Ovar Res. 2023;16(1):67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Bhagat N, Gajjar K. Management of ovarian cysts during pregnancy. Obstet Gynaecol Reprod Med. 2022;32(9):205–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Senarath S, Ades A, Nanayakkara P. Ovarian cysts in pregnancy: a narrative review. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2021;41(2):169–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Zvi MB, Thanatsis N, Vashisht A. Ovarian cysts in pregnancy. In: Jha S, Madhuvrata P, editors. Gynaecology for the obstetrician. Cambridge University Press; 2023. p. 1–13. https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1017/9781009208802.003.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  50. Rodriguez-Wallberg KA, Lundberg FE, Ekberg S, Johansson AL, Ludvigsson JF, Almqvist C, et al. Mortality from infancy to adolescence in singleton children conceived from assisted reproductive techniques versus naturally conceived singletons in Sweden. Fertil Steril. 2020;113(3):524–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Boulet SL, Kirby RS, Reefhuis J, Zhang Y, Sunderam S, Cohen B, et al. Assisted reproductive technology and birth defects among Liveborn infants in Florida, Massachusetts, and Michigan, 2000–2010. JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170(6):e154934.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. DeSilva M, Munoz FM, Mcmillan M, Kawai AT, Marshall H, Macartney KK, et al. Congenital anomalies: case definition and guidelines for data collection, analysis, and presentation of immunization safety data. Vaccine. 2016;34(49):6015.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to appreciate Dr. Somaieh Kazemnejad, the corresponding author of the previous three phases of this study, Miss Maryam Darzi (Production Manager), Mrs. Somayeh Khorasani (production line assistant), Mrs. Zohreh Fathi (supervisor of the embryology lab), and Mrs. Fariba Mohammadi (supervisor of the operation room) for their assistance in the implementation of this project. The authors declare that they have not used AI-generated work in this manuscript.

Funding

This study was financially supported by Avicenna Research Institute (Grant Number: 990304–008). The funding body played no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Simin Zafardoust and Hamidreza Didar are equally the first authors of the article.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nanobiotechnology Research Center, Avicenna Research Institute, ACECR, Tehran, Iran

    Simin Zafardoust & Mina Fathi-Kazerooni

  2. Avicenna Fertility Clinic, Avicenna Research Institute, ACECR, Tehran, Iran

    Hamidreza Didar & Maryam Ghasemi Ganagard

  3. Monoclonal Antibody Research Center, Avicenna Research Institute, ACECR, Tehran, Iran

    Maryam Tavakoli & Soheila Arefi

  4. The Faculty of Science and New Biological Technologies, University of Science and Culture, Tehran, Iran

    Shaghayegh Arjmandinaloo

Authors
  1. Simin Zafardoust
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hamidreza Didar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maryam Ghasemi Ganagard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Maryam Tavakoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Soheila Arefi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Shaghayegh Arjmandinaloo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mina Fathi-Kazerooni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SZ: Designed the study, supervised the project, and critically reviewed the manuscript for important intellectual content. HD: Contributed to the conception and design of the study, performed data collection, analysis, and interpretation, and drafted the manuscript. MGG: Provided clinical expertise, contributed to patient recruitment, and reviewed the manuscript. MT: Involved in statistical analysis and interpretation of the data, and helped in drafting the manuscript. SA: Contributed to the design of the study and supervised the project. SA: Involved in the interpretation of the data, and helped in drafting the manuscript. MFK: Assisted in the literature review, contributed to writing sections of the manuscript, and reviewed the final draft.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mina Fathi-Kazerooni.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and Consent to participate

The study was started after providing complete information to patients and obtaining signed written consent. This clinical study was conducted with the permission of the Ethics Committee for Biomedical Research of the Academic Center for Education, Culture, and Research (ACECR, Tehran, Iran) (IR.ACECR.REC.1397.002, 2018–05-06 and IR.ACECR.REC.1399.002, 2020–05-31) under the title "Evaluation of the safety and feasibility of intra-ovarian injection of menstrual blood stem cells in women with poor ovarian responders (POR)”. All procedures observed were under the Declaration of Helsinki, Good Clinical Practice (GCP), and GMP guidelines. Furthermore, this study was registered with the Iranian Clinical Trials Registry (IRCT20180619040147N2) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05703308). The cell manufacturing was performed by STERCO (Tehran, Iran) in a GMP clean room authorized by Iran Food and Drug Administration authorities.

Consent for publication

Not relevant.

Competing of interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zafardoust, S., Didar, H., Ganagard, M.G. et al. Intra-ovarian injection of autologous menstrual blood-derived-mesenchymal stromal cells: a safe and promising method to improve pregnancy rate in poor ovarian responders. Stem Cell Res Ther 16, 171 (2025). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s13287-025-04278-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s13287-025-04278-6

Keywords

Stem Cell Research & Therapy

ISSN: 1757-6512