Background/Aims: Survival of warmed oocytes is the first part and is one of the most important aspects of in vitro fertilization following oocyte cryopreservation. There is no definite conclusion about the difference in survival rates between closed and open vitrification for oocyte cryopreservation. This study aimed to investigate whether there is a difference in survival rates between closed and open vitrification for cryopreservation of human mature oocytes. Methods: A literature search was performed using the MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase databases. A total of 4 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Results: In the frequentist meta-analysis, the random effects model showed no statistically significant difference in survival rates between closed and open vitrification (risk ratio [RR] 0.8873, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.7658–1.0280). However, an effect size deviation of the RR from 1.0 and a borderline trend of the 95% CI were noted. In the Bayesian meta-analysis, the posterior probability that closed vitrification would decrease the survival rate when compared to that with open vitrification was 83.04% for the random effects model. Conclusion: It is not yet possible to conclude that closed vitrification is an aseptic alternative to open vitrification in human mature oocyte cryopreservation.

Keywords:
Vitrification, Human mature oocyte, Closed carrier device, Open carrier device, Survival rates
1.
Fahy GM, MacFarlane DR, Angell CA, Meryman HT: Vitrification as an approach to cryopreservation. Cryobiology 1984; 21: 407–426.
2.
Bielanski A: A review of the risk of contamination of semen and embryos during cryopreservation and measures to limit cross-contamination during banking to prevent disease transmission in ET practices. Theriogenology 2012; 77: 467–482.
3.
Vajta G, Rienzi L, Ubaldi FM: Open versus closed systems for vitrification of human oocytes and embryos. Reprod Biomed Online 2015; 30: 325–333.
4.
Vanderzwalmen P, Ectors F, Grobet L, Prapas Y, Panagiotidis Y, Vanderzwalmen S, Stecher A, Frias P, Liebermann J, Zech NH: Aseptic vitrification of blastocysts from infertile patients, egg donors and after IVM. Reprod Biomed Online 2009; 19: 700–707.
5.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6:e1000097.
6.
Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA; Cochrane Bias Methods Group; Cochrane Statistical Methods Group: The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2001; 343:d5928.
7.
Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, Carpenter J, Rücker G, Harbord RM, Schmid CH, Tetzlaff J, Deeks JJ, Peters J, Macaskill P, Schwarzer G, Duval S, Altman DG, Moher D, Higgins JP: Recommendations for examining and interp-reting funnel plot asymmetry in meta--analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2011; 342:d4002.
8.
Bonetti A, Cervi M, Tomei F, Marchini M, Ortolani F, Manno M: Ultrastructural evaluation of human metaphase II -oocytes after vitrification: closed versus open devices. Fertil Steril 2011; 95: 928–935.
9.
Paffoni A, Guarneri C, Ferrari S, Restelli L, Nicolosi AE, Scarduelli C. Ragni G: Effects of two vitrification protocols on the developmental potential of human mature oocytes. Reprod Biomed Online 2011; 22: 292–298.
10.
Papatheodorou A, Vanderzwalmen P, Panagiotidis Y, Prapas N, Zikopoulos K, Georgiou I, Prapas Y: Open versus closed oocyte vitrification system: a prospective randomized sibling-oocyte study. Reprod Biomed Online 2013; 26: 595–602.
11.
De Munck N, Santos-Ribeiro S, Stoop D, Van de Velde H, Verheyen G: Open versus closed oocyte vitrification in an oocyte donation programme: a prospective randomized sibling oocyte study. Hum Reprod 2016; 31: 377–384.
12.
Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR: Fixed-effect versus random-effects models; in Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR (ed): Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2009, pp 60–102.
13.
Chen DG, Peace KE: Fixed-effects and random-effects in meta-analysis: applied meta-analysis with R; in Chen DG, Peace KE (ed): Applied Meta-Analysis with R. Florida, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 2013, pp 43–69.
14.
Yavin S, Arav A: Measurement of essential physical properties of vitrification solutions. Theriogenology 2007; 67: 81–89.
15.
Seki S, Mazur P: Effect of warming rate on the survival of vitrified mouse oocytes and on the recrystallization of intracellular ice. Biol Reprod 2008; 79: 727–737.
16.
Seki S, Mazur P: The dominance of warming rate over cooling rate in the survival of mouse oocytes subjected to a vitrification procedure. Cryobiology 2009; 59: 75–82.
© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel
2017
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.