摘要
目的比较玻璃化冷冻与程序化冷冻对人类早期胚胎解冻后复苏效果及临床结局的影响。方法辅助生殖技术获取的剩余可利用人类胚胎2 884枚,其中采用玻璃化冷冻复苏666个周期,解冻胚胎1 516枚、复苏1 383枚、移植胚胎1 375枚;程序化冷冻复苏506个周期,解冻胚胎1 368枚、复苏1 090枚、移植1 077枚。比较两种方法的复苏效果及临床结局。结果玻璃化冷冻组胚胎复苏率、胚胎完整率分别为92.02%、92.11%,高于程序化冷冻组的79.68%、69.63%(P<0.05);两组种植率、临床妊娠率、周期取消率、多胎妊娠率、早期流产率、新生儿胎龄、早产率、新生儿出生体重、出生缺陷率比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论玻璃化冷冻较程序化冷冻有更高的胚胎复苏率及胚胎完整率,胚胎利用率高,两种冷冻方法的临床结局相似,适用于人类胚胎的冷冻。
Objective To compare the effects between vitrification and programmable freezing on recovery efficacy and clinical outcome of human early embryos after unfreezing. Methods A total of residual and available 2 884 embryos were obtained using assisted reproductive technology. In 666 vitrification cycles, unfreezing was conducted in 1 516 embryos, recovery in 1 383 embryos, and embryo transplantation in 1 375 embryos. In 506 programmable freezing cycles ,unfreezing was conducted in 1 368 embryos ,recovery in 1 090 embryos ,and embryo transplantation in 1 077 embryos. The recovery efficacy and clinical outcome were compared between the two technologies. Results The embryo recovery rate（92.02% ） and embryo integrity rate（92.11% ） in the vitrification group were higher than those in the programmable freezing group（79.68% and 69.63% respectively） （P 〈0.05）. There were no statistical differences in the implanted rate,clinical pregnancy rate, cycle cancellation rate, multiple pregnancy rate, early abortion rate, neonatal gestational age, preterm birth rate, neonatal weight at birth or birth defects rate between the two groups （ P 〉 0.05 ）. Conclusion Compared to programmable freezing, vitrification can obtain higher embryo recovery rate, embryo integrity rate and utilization rate for embryo. The clinical outcomes of both technologies are similar, and can be applied to human embryo eryopreservation.
出处
《广西医学》
CAS
2016年第2期175-177,共3页
Guangxi Medical Journal
基金
广西自然科学基金(2013GXNSFAA019140)
关键词
胚胎冷冻
玻璃化冷冻
程序化冷冻
胚胎移植
妊娠结局
复苏
Embryo cryopreservation, Vitrification, Programmable freezing, Embryo transplantation, Clinical outcome, Recovery
