Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Reprod Biomed Online. 2013 Jun;26(6):595-602. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.02.014. Epub 2013 Mar 14.

Open versus closed oocyte vitrification system: a prospective randomized sibling-oocyte study.

Author information

1
IANENTRO Fertility Center, Thessaloniki, Greece. achilleas@iakentro.gr

Abstract

Vitrification has been successfully applied in the cryopreservation of oocytes and embryos. It can be achieved either by direct (open system) or indirect (closed system) contact with liquid nitrogen. Unlike embryo vitrification, few reports have been published regarding oocyte vitrification in closed systems. In order to validate the effectiveness of a closed and aseptic vitrification approach for oocyte cryopreservation, a prospective, randomized study was performed. Sibling oocytes donated from the same donor were randomly and equally assigned into closed or open vitrification groups. A total of 75 vitrification-warming cycles were performed in each group. Apart from the survival rate (82.9% versus 91.0%, P<0.05), no statistically significant differences were observed in pregnancy (β-human chorionic gonadotrophin positive) (42.7% versus 33.3%), clinical pregnancy (36.0% versus 28.0%), implantation (13.8% versus 10.1%), ongoing pregnancy (33.3% versus 24.0%) and live birth (36.0% versus 24.0%) rates between the closed and open groups, and 27 and 18 healthy babies were born, respectively. This study shows that the replacement of the open vitrification system by a closed system has no impact on clinical pregnancy and implantation rates. Therefore, the closed vitrification system provides an aseptic alternative to the open method for oocyte vitrification.

PMID:
23602678
DOI:
10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.02.014
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Support Center