玻璃化和程序化冻融人卵裂期胚胎结果分析

Comparing the outcomes of vitrification and programming methods for cryopreservation of cleavage stage embryos

目的探讨冻融周期中玻璃化和程序化两种不同方法对人卵裂期胚胎的冷冻复苏效果。方法回顾性分析35例玻璃化冷冻复苏周期和123例程序化冷冻复苏周期资料,比较冷冻胚胎复苏后的胚胎存活率、完整性胚胎存活率,冻融前后的优质胚胎率,临床妊娠率、胚胎种植率。结果①玻璃化法与程序化法冷冻前优质胚胎率无显著性差异(70.83%和71.97%,P>0.05),冷冻后优质胚胎率差异显著(63.89%和47.75%,P<0.05),复苏后的胚胎存活率差异显著(95.83%和86.16%,P<0.05),完整性胚胎存活率差异极显著(90.28%和63.32%,P<0.01);②玻璃化法与程序化法临床妊娠率差异显著(48.57%和29.27%,P<0.05),种植率差异显著(31.88%和18.83%,P<0.05)。结论在冻融人卵裂期胚胎的过程中,玻璃化优于程序化,可以更好的提高累积临床妊率。

Objective ： To compare the outcomes of vitrification and programming cryopreservation of cleavage stage embryos in as-sisted reproductive technology. Methods： A retrospective statistical analysis was performed in our center on 35 vitrification cycles and 123 programming cycles. Frozen embryo survival rate and integrity embryonic survival rate after embryo recovery, good quality embryo before and after embryo recovery, clinical pregnancy rate and embryo implantation rate were compared. Results ： ①For vitrification and programming method, the good quality embryo rate had no significant difference before frozen embryo （70. 83% and 71.97%, P 〉 0. 05）, and the good quality embryo rate had significant difference after frozen embryo （63.89% and 47. 75%, P 〈0. 05）, and the embryo survival rate after embryo recovery had significant difference （95.83% and 86. 16%, P 〈 0. 05）, and the integrity embryonic survival rate had very significant difference （90. 28% and 63.32%, P 〈 0. 01 ）. ②The clinical pregnancy rate had significant differ-ence （48.57% and 29. 27%, P 〈 0. 05）, and the implanting rate had significant difference （31.88% andl8.83%, P 〈 0. 05）. Conclusion ： In the freezing and thawing human cleavage stage embryo, vitrification is superior to programming, that can better improve the cumulative clinical pregnancy rate.