4.1 Review

Current trends and progress in clinical applications of oocyte cryopreservation

Journal

CURRENT OPINION IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Volume 25, Issue 3, Pages 247-254

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0b013e32836091f4

Keywords

elective oocyte cryopreservation; fertility preservation; oocyte cryopreservation; slow freezing; vitrification

Funding

  1. National Institute of Health (NIH) [R01HD059909]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose of review To delineate the current trends in the clinical application of oocyte cryopreservation. Recent findings Although the first live birth from oocyte cryopreservation was reported approximately three decades ago, significant improvement in the clinical application of oocyte cryopreservation took place only over the past decade. On the basis of the available evidence suggesting that success rates with donor oocyte vitrification are similar to that of IVF with fresh donor oocytes, the American Society of Reproductive Medicine has recently stated that oocyte cryopreservation should no longer be considered experimental for medical indications, outlying elective oocyte cryopreservation. Meanwhile, a few surveys on the attitudes toward oocyte cryopreservation revealed that elective use for the postponement of fertility is currently the most common indication for oocyte cryopreservation. Most recently, a randomized controlled trial revealed important evidence on the safety of nondonor oocyte cryopreservation, and confirmed that the clinical success of vitrification is comparable to that of IVF with fresh oocytes. Summary The evidence suggesting similar IVF success rates with both donor and nondonor cryopreserved oocytes compared with fresh oocytes will increase the utilization of elective oocyte cryopreservation. Appropriate counseling of women for oocyte cryopreservation requires the establishment of age-based clinical success rates with cryopreserved oocytes for various indications.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available