• Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine
• /
• v.34 no.2
• /
• pp.125-131
• /
• 2007

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare GnRH antagonist and agonist flare-up treatment in the management of poor responder patients. Methods: One hundred forty-four patients from Jan. 1, 2002 to Aug. 31, 2005 undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment who responded poorly to the previous cycle (No. of oocyte retrieved$\leq$5) and had high early follicular phase follicle stimulating hormone (FSH>12 mIU/ml were selected. Seventy-five patients received agonist flare-up protocol and 71 patients received antagonist protocol. We analyzed the number of oocytes retrieved, number of good embryos (GI, GI-1), total dose of hMG administered, implantation rate, cycle cancellation rate, pregnancy rate, live birth rate. Results: The cancellation rate was high in antagonist protocol (53.5% vs. 30.1%). The number of oocyte retrieved, the number of good embyos were high in agonist flare-up group. There was no statistical difference between GnRH agonist flare up protocol and GnRH antagonist protocol in implantation rate (14.5%, 10.1%), clinical pregnancy rate per transfer (29.4%, 21.2%) and live birth rate per transfer (21.6%, 18.2%). Although the result was not statistically significant, GnRH agonist flare up group showed a nearly doubled pregnancy rate and live birth rate per initial cycle than GnRH antagonist group. Conclusions: The agonist flare-up protocol appears to be slightly more effective than the GnRH antagonist protocol in implantation rate, pregnancy rate, live birth rate but shows statistically no significance. Agonist flare-up protocol improved the ovarian response in poor responders. However, based of the result of the study, we can expect improved ovarian response in poor responders by GnRH agonist flare up protocol.

• Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.205-210
• /
• 1989

To investigate the effects of ovarian cysts on the controlled ovarian hyper-stimulation cycles, 16 patients with 16 paired cycles for IVF-ET were analyzed. These patients had taken both type of cycles, i.e., with cyst(cyst group) and without cyst(control group). Mean diameter of ovarian cysts in cyst group was 18.2mm. There were no significant differences in hormone levels in early follicular phase between two groups. No significant differences were found in total dosage of hMG(IU) administered during the ovarian stimulation $843.8{\pm}123.0$ vs $891.0{\pm}129.8$, serum estradiol level (pg/ml) on the day of hCG administration($1542.8{\pm}1100.6$ vs $1567.5{\pm}1193.0$), the number of aspirated follicles $10.0{\pm}3.4$ vs $11.2{\pm}4.3$ and oocytes $5.3{\pm}3.3$ vs $6.2{\pm}3.1$, the fertilization rate(51.2 % vs 57.2 %) and the cleavage rate(40.5 % vs 52.0 %). Serum estradiol terminal patterns during COH in one group tended to be repeated in the other group. In conclusion, this study suggests that small ovarian cysts do not adversely impact on the controlled ovarian hyperstimulation parameters in IVF - ET program and the presence of small ovarian cyst without concomitant high basal serum estradiol level is not an indication of the cancellation of the controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for IVF-ET.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.459-488
• /
• 2004

General interest in the out-of-court dispute resolution system are mounting in Korea, and the spread of ADR(alternative dispute resolution) is the worldwide trend. In addition, it was confirmed that the resolution of disputes by ADR such as the decision based on arbitration made by the Prime Ministerial Administrative Decision Committee is no longer in exclusive possession of the civil case. The activation of ADR could lead to the smooth agreement between parties by getting away from the once-for-all mode of decision such as the dismissal of the application or the cancellation of disposal and the like in relation to administrative cases for the years. In consequence, it is anticipated that the administrative litigation that applicants have filed by not responding to the administrative decision would greatly reduce in the future. But, it would be urgent to provide for the legal ground of the ADR system through the revision of related laws to take root in our society because ADR has no legal binding power relating to the administrative case due to the absence of its legal grounds. The fundamental reason for having hesitated to introduce ADR in relation to the administrative case for the years is the protective interest of the third party as well as the public interest that would follow in case the agreement on the dispute resolution between parties brings the dispute to a termination in the domain of the public law. The disputes related to the contract based on the public law and the like that take on a judicial character as the administrative act have been settled within the province of ADR by applying the current laws such as the Civil Arbitration Law, Mediation Law, but their application to the administrative act of the administrative agency that takes on a character of the public law has been hesitated. But as discussed earlier, there are laws and regulations that has the obscure distinction between public and private laws. But there is no significant advantage in relation to the distinction between public and private laws. To supplement and cure these defects it is necessary to include the institutional arrangement for protection of the rights and benefits of the third party, for example the provision of the imposition of the binding power on the result of ADR between parties, in enacting its related law. It can be said that the right reorganization of the out-of-court dispute resolution system in relation to the administrative case corresponds with the ideology of public administration for cooperaton in the Administrative Law. It is high time to discuss within what realm the out-of-court dispute resolution system, alternative dispute resolution system, can be accepted and what binding power is imposed on its result, not whether it is entirely introduced into the administrative case. It is thought that the current Civil Mediation Law or Arbitration Law provides the possibility of applying arbitration or mediation only to the civil case, thereby opening the possibility of arbitration in the field of the intellectual property right law. For instance, the act of the state is not required in establishing the rights related to the secret of business or copyrights. Nevertheless, the disputes arising from or in connection with the intellectual property rights law is seen as the administrative case, and they are excluded from the object of arbitration or mediation, which is thought to be improper. This is not an argument for unconditionally importing ADR into the resolution of administrative cases. Most of the Korean people are aware that the administrative litigation system is of paramount importance as the legal relief for administrative cases. Seeing that there is an independent administrative decision system based on the Administrative Decision Law other than administrative litigation in relation to administrative cases, the first and foremost task is the necessity for the shift in thinking of people, followed by consideration of the plan for relief of the rights through the improvement of the administrative decision system. Then, it is necessary to formulate the plan for the formal introduction and activation of ADR. In this process, energetic efforts should be devoted to introducing diverse forms of ADR procedures such as settlement conference, case evaluation, mini-trial, summary jury trial, early neutral evaluation adopted in the US as the method of dispute resolution other than compromise, conciliation, arbitration and mediation