Vitrification versus slow freezing for human ovarian tissue cryopreservation: a systematic review and meta-anlaysis
Abstract Vitrification is a well-accepted procedure for cryopreservation of gametes and embryos. Less is known, however, about its performance in preserving ovarian tissue, for which slow freezing is the current convention. Increasing interest is being focused on vitrification, but there are as yet...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Nature Portfolio
2017
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/0e10ba33464547e592cb1295710bc6d6 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Abstract Vitrification is a well-accepted procedure for cryopreservation of gametes and embryos. Less is known, however, about its performance in preserving ovarian tissue, for which slow freezing is the current convention. Increasing interest is being focused on vitrification, but there are as yet no standard protocols for its use with ovarian tissue. In part, this is because of the variety of cell types and complex nature of ovarian tissue. We performed a meta-analysis of 14 studies that compared vitrification with slow freezing for cryopreservation of ovarian tissue. In the pooled analysis, there was no significant difference between the two methods in terms of the proportion of intact primordial follicles, but vitrification was associated with significantly less DNA damage. Secondary endpoints included the number of stromal cells, significantly higher with vitrification, and primordial follicle density, which did not differ between the two methods. The present meta-analysis suggests that vitrification may be more effective than slow freezing, with less primordial follicular DNA strand breaks and better preservation of stromal cells. These advantages should lead to improved ovarian function after transplantation. |
|---|