Fertility and sterility · 2026
Vitrified vs. slow-frozen donor sperm in in vitro fertilization: higher fertilization in conventional insemination but similar clinical outcomes.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Coll Lluc, Bogunyà Laura, Ballester Marta, Pons Maria Carme, Rodríguez Ignacio, Boada Montserrat, Polyzos Nikolaos P, Parriego Mònica
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To study whether the method of donor sperm cryopreservation, vitrification or slow freezing, affects embryological and clinical outcomes in in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
SUBJECTS: A total of 604 IVF cycles conducted between January 2023 and November 2024 using donor sperm cryopreserved by vitrification (n = 396) or slow freezing (n = 208).
EXPOSURE: Cryopreservation method of donor sperm (vitrification vs. slow freezing).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Fertilization rate, usable blastocyst rate, and clinical pregnancy rate after the first embryo transfer.
RESULTS: Overall fertilization rates were similar between groups; however, stratified analysis by insemination technique revealed a significantly higher fertilization rate with vitrified sperm in conventional IVF cycles (76.4% vs. 65.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.95 [1.11-3.40]), whereas no difference was observed in intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles (76.8% vs. 79.7%; aOR 0.84 [0.65-1.09]). Usable blastocyst and clinical pregnancy rates after the first embryo transfer were comparable between vitrification and slow freezing groups. Multivariable analyses adjusting for confounders confirmed these findings.
CONCLUSION: Donor sperm vitrification is a safe alternative to conventional slow freezing and yields comparable blastocyst and clinical outcomes. Notably, in conventional IVF cycles, vitrification was associated with a significantly higher fertilization rate. This advantage was not observed in ICSI cycles, suggesting that vitrification better preserves sperm membrane functionality required for natural gamete interaction. Although clinical outcomes remain similar between both methods, reduced fertilization with slow-frozen sperm may decrease the number of embryos available, with potential implications for overall treatment efficiency.
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
SUBJECTS: A total of 604 IVF cycles conducted between January 2023 and November 2024 using donor sperm cryopreserved by vitrification (n = 396) or slow freezing (n = 208).
EXPOSURE: Cryopreservation method of donor sperm (vitrification vs. slow freezing).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Fertilization rate, usable blastocyst rate, and clinical pregnancy rate after the first embryo transfer.
RESULTS: Overall fertilization rates were similar between groups; however, stratified analysis by insemination technique revealed a significantly higher fertilization rate with vitrified sperm in conventional IVF cycles (76.4% vs. 65.9%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.95 [1.11-3.40]), whereas no difference was observed in intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles (76.8% vs. 79.7%; aOR 0.84 [0.65-1.09]). Usable blastocyst and clinical pregnancy rates after the first embryo transfer were comparable between vitrification and slow freezing groups. Multivariable analyses adjusting for confounders confirmed these findings.
CONCLUSION: Donor sperm vitrification is a safe alternative to conventional slow freezing and yields comparable blastocyst and clinical outcomes. Notably, in conventional IVF cycles, vitrification was associated with a significantly higher fertilization rate. This advantage was not observed in ICSI cycles, suggesting that vitrification better preserves sperm membrane functionality required for natural gamete interaction. Although clinical outcomes remain similar between both methods, reduced fertilization with slow-frozen sperm may decrease the number of embryos available, with potential implications for overall treatment efficiency.