NaProTECHNOLOGY – a chance for offspring or fraud? In the media space in Poland, you can meet the concept of Naprotechnology as an alternative to the in vitro procedure. Often, many myths and untruths appear in the discussion regarding this method of treatment. Naprotechnology is a new look at the health of women and men created by prof. Thomas Hilgers. It takes into account natural fertility biomarkers thanks to observation with the Creighton Model based on the female mucus. At every stage of diagnosis and treatment, Naprotechnology respects human life from the moment of conception and the mutual dignity of the spouses. It also does not use assisted reproductive procedures for ethical reasons. Naprotechnology is part of the broader scientific discipline of restorative medicine in infertility. Thanks to the accurate diagnosis and observation of the cycle, it is possible to correctly diagnose the cause of infertility. A proper diagnosis is the starting point for the implementation of specialized pharmacological and surgical treatment for both women and men. Properly used Naprotechnology and restorative medicine are highly effective in treating marital infertility. W przestrzeni medialnej w Polsce można spotkać pojęcie Naprotechnologii jako alternatywy dla procedury in vitro. Często w dyskusji pojawia się wiele mitów i nieprawdy dotyczących takiego sposobu leczenia. Naprotechnologia, stworzona przez prof. Thomasa Hilgersa, jest nowym spojrzeniem na zdrowie kobiety i mężczyzny. Uwzględnia ona naturalne biomarkery płodności dzięki obserwacji za pomocą Modelu Creighton bazującego na kobiecym śluzie. Na każdym etapie diagnostyki i leczenia Naprotechnologia szanuje ludzkie życie od samego poczęcia oraz wzajemną godność małżonków. Nie stosuje ona też procedur wspomaganego rozrodu z powodów etycznych. Naprotechnologia jest częścią szerszej dyscypliny naukowej, jaką jest przyczynowe leczenie niepłodności. Dzięki dokładnej diagnostyce i obserwacji cyklu możliwe jest postawienie prawidłowej diagnozy dotyczącej przyczyny niepłodności. Właściwa diagnoza jest punktem wyjścia dla wdrożenia specjalistycznego leczenia farmakologicznego i chirurgicznego zarówno wobec kobiety, jak i mężczyzny. Prawidłowo stosowana Naprotechnologia i przyczynowe leczenie niepłodności cechują się wysoką skutecznością leczenia niepłodności małżeńskiej.
NaProTECHNOLOGY infertility treatment Poland effectiveness, Naprotechnology Creighton Model cervical mucus biomarkers, NaProTECHNOLOGY alternative to IVF ethical considerations, Hilgers NaProTECHNOLOGY restorative reproductive medicine infertility, NaProTECHNOLOGY diagnosis cause infertility pharmacological surgical treatment, Creighton Model fertility cycle observation diagnosis, restorative medicine infertility natural biomarkers treatment, NaProTECHNOLOGY marital infertility effectiveness myths, NaProTECHNOLOGY ethical alternative assisted reproduction Poland, natural fertility biomarkers cervical mucus NaProTECHNOLOGY diagnosis
DOI 10.4467/25443283SYM.21.020.14700 10.4467/25443283SYM.21.020.14700 Kandzia et al. 2021, Kandzia 2021
Cite this article
Kandzia, T. (2021). Naprotechnologia – szansa na potomstwo czy oszustwo?. Sympozjum, 25(2 (41)), 89-102. https://doi.org/10.4467/25443283SYM.21.020.14700
Kandzia T. Naprotechnologia – szansa na potomstwo czy oszustwo?. Sympozjum. 2021;25(2 (41)):89-102. doi:10.4467/25443283SYM.21.020.14700
Kandzia, Tomasz. "Naprotechnologia – szansa na potomstwo czy oszustwo?." Sympozjum, vol. 25, no. 2 (41), 2021, pp. 89-102.
Lora J et al., 2022·Clin. Exp. Obstet. Gynecol.·
Open Access
The principal objective of this study was to correlate biophysical properties of vaginal discharge present in the cervical mucus with the timing of the fertile window. In particular, we produce measures of the viscoelasticity of the cervical secretion using two methods. The first uses only the elasticity extracted from the Creighton Model Fertility Care System (CrMs) scale, calculated P-6 ovulation estimated day (OED) with respect to the peak day of the CrMs. The second uses a numerical method that takes into account the changes in viscoelasticity, but without reference to the peak day calculated using the CrMs model. Using both methods, twelve records were obtained from a single female subject. The methodology used to evaluate the viscoelasticity factor was by measuring the approximate length in centimeters (cm) of the vaginal discharge of cervical discharge. For this, the scale of the stretching graph established by observing the stretching of CrMS was used, taking into account the previous 6 days at peak day P-6. The first method, which we termed CFW (Clinical Fertile Window), uses a measure based on the approximate length (cm) of the maximal stretchiness of the vaginal discharge. The second method we termed SFW (Software-CrMS/strectching) (Software-based Fertile Window). The fertile window was detected correctly in 100% of the cases using either method, and a correlation value of 0.71 was observed between the two methods. We conclude that the assessment of viscoelasticity using SFW algorithm allowed in this pilot study to detect the fertile window and to describe the evolution pattern of cervical discharge throughout the fertile window. Our study provides support for the use of computational methods in detecting the fertile window, taking only into account the time evolution of the cervical discharge throughout the menstrual cycle.
Previous research has demonstrated that women instructed in fertility awareness methods can identify the Peak Day of cervical mucus discharge for each menstrual cycle, and the Peak Day has high agreement with other indicators of the day of ovulation. However, previous studies enrolled experienced users of fertility awareness methods or were not fully blinded. To assess the agreement between cervical mucus Peak Day identified by fertile women without prior experience on assessing cervical mucus discharge with the estimated day of ovulation (1 day after urine luteinising hormone surge). This study is a secondary analysis of data from a randomised trial of the Creighton Model FertilityCare(TM) System (CrM), conducted 2003-2006, for women trying to conceive. Women who had no prior experience tracking cervical mucus recorded vulvar observations daily using a standardised assessment of mucus characteristics for up to seven menstrual cycles. Four approaches were used to identify the Peak Day. The referent day was defined as one day after the first identified day of luteinising hormone (LH) surge in the urine, assessed blindly. The percentage of agreement between the Peak Day and the referent day of ovulation was calculated. Fifty-seven women with 187 complete cycles were included. A Peak Day was identified in 117 (63%) cycles by women, 185 (99%) cycles by experts, and 187 (100%) by computer algorithm. The woman-picked Peak Day was the same as the referent day in 25% of 117 cycles, within ±1 day in 58% of cycles, ±2 days in 84%, ±3 days in 87%, and ±4 days in 92%. The ±1 day and ± 4 days' agreement was 50% and 90% for the expert-picked and 47% and 87% for the computer-picked Peak Day, respectively. Women's daily tracking of cervical mucus is a low-cost alternative for identifying the estimated day of ovulation.
Women wishing to conceive are largely unaware of fertility symptoms at the time of ovulation. This study investigated the effectiveness of fertility-awareness in achieving pregnancy, particularly fertile mucus pattern, in the context of infertility. The 384 eligible participants were taken from consecutive women desiring pregnancy who attended 17 Australian Billings Ovulation Method(®) clinics from 1999-2003. This cohort included couples with infertility ≥12 months (51%) and female age >35 years (28%). Under fertility-awareness instruction, pregnancy was achieved by 240 couples (62.5%) after maximum follow-up of two years. Mucus symptom observations effectively stratified 'low pregnancy-potential' (35.2%) and 'high pregnancy-potential' groups. Pregnancy rates were ∼30% higher in the latter group (44.4% versus 72.3%) in addition to consistent effects observed on pregnancy achievements within subgroups defined by prognostic factors such as duration of infertility (p = 0.001) and increasing female age (p = 0.04). Fertile symptoms were also associated with significantly shorter time to conception (4.2 versus 6.4 months) in a survival analysis (p = 0.003). Billings Ovulation Method(®) observations strongly predicted successful conception. This has the capacity to provide a rapid, reliable and cost-effective approach to stratifying fertility potential, including directing timely and targeted investigations/management, and is accessible for women who may be remote from primary or specialist care.
NaProTECHNOLOGY is a new field of medicine specializing in the promotion of human procreation. Its foundation is a teaching system called the Creighton Model Fertility Care System. It is based on the ability to observe and record biological biomarkers, enabling spouses to recognize and understand the naturally occurring cycle of fertility and infertility. The spouses can use their acquired knowledge both for achiving pregnancy and avoiding pregnancy. The system also enables them to broaden their knowledge to better understand sexuality and deepen their mutual love. It also plays an important role in diagnosing and treating reproductive health according to the natural cycle of women. NaProTECHNOLOGY is involved in building a "new culture of life" through integral concern for human fertility by restoring natural procreation and respecting the principles of responsible parenthood.