First U.S. Woman with Uterus Transplant Looks Forward to Pregnancy

The patient, who was born without a uterus, received a womb from a deceased donor in her 30s

©iStock.com

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

By Fiona Ortiz

A 26-year-old woman who received the first transplanted uterus in the United States said on Monday she was looking forward to getting pregnant next year.

"I was told at 16 I would never have children. From that moment on I prayed that God would allow me the opportunity to experience pregnancy," said Lindsey, who did not give her last name to protect the privacy of her three adopted sons.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Lindsey, who was born without a uterus and received a womb from a deceased donor in her 30s, read a brief statement to reporters at a news conference. She was in a wheelchair and is still staying at the hospital for monitoring.

The transplant, done in a nine-hour surgery on Feb. 24, was the first of 10 uterine transplants planned as part of a clinical trial at the Cleveland Clinic, which has screened 250 potential recipients.

The Cleveland team of surgeons who are conducting the trial said they worked closely with doctors in Sweden, where five babies have been born since 2014 to mothers with transplanted wombs.

Women who get a womb transplant in Cleveland will stay in the hospital one to two months following surgery, then return home and lead a fairly normal life on immunosuppression medications to keep their bodies from rejecting the transplanted organ, doctors said at the news conference.

Lindsey must wait a year to get pregnant, until she is on a lower dose of anti-rejection drugs, the doctors said. After one or two babies, the uterus will be removed so that she does not have to spend her whole life on anti-rejection drugs, the doctors said.

Embryos from her eggs and her husband's sperm will be implanted in her uterus. She cannot conceive through intercourse because the uterine transplant does not include the fallopian tubes.

The baby will be delivered by cesarean section as close as possible to its due date, the doctors said.

"Uterus transplant is not just about a surgery and moving a uterus from here to there. It's about having a healthy baby and that goal is still a couple of years away," said obstetrics and gynecology surgeon Rebecca Flyckt, referring to the year-long wait before trying to get pregnant, and the nine-month pregnancy.

The women who will participate in the trial include some born without a uterus - which happens to one in 5,000 women - and others who had a hysterectomy due to cancer or other problems.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe