Sarandi S, Herbemont C, Sermondade N, Benoit A, Sonigo C, Poncelet C, Benard J, Gronier H, Boujenah J, Grynberg M, Sifer C
Service d'histologie-embryologie-cytogénétique-biologie de la reproduction-CECOS, centre hospitalier universitaire Jean-Verdier, avenue du 14-Juillet, 93140 Bondy, France.
Service d'histologie-embryologie-cytogénétique-biologie de la reproduction-CECOS, centre hospitalier universitaire Jean-Verdier, avenue du 14-Juillet, 93140 Bondy, France; UFR SMBH, université Paris 13, Sorbonne Paris cité, 93000 Bobigny, France.
Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2016 May;44(5):280-4. doi: 10.1016/j.gyobfe.2016.02.003. Epub 2016 Mar 8.
Oocyte vitrification using an open device is thought to be a source of microbiological and chemical contaminations that can be avoided using a closed device. The principal purpose of this study was to compare the two vitrification protocols: closed and open system. The secondary aim was to study the effects of the storage in the vapor phase of nitrogen (VPN) on oocytes vitrified using an open system and to compare it to those of a storage in liquid nitrogen (LN).
Forty-four patients have been included in our study between November 2014 and May 2015. Two hundred and fourteen oocytes have been vitrified at germinal vesicle (GV), metaphase I (0PB) and metaphase II (1PB) stages. We vitrified 96 oocytes (59 GV/37 0PB) using a closed vitrification device and 118 oocytes (57 GV/31 0PB/30 1PB) using an open device. The vitrified oocytes were then stored either in LN or in VPN. The main outcome measures were the survival rate after warming (SR), meiosis resumption rate (MRR) and maturation rate (MR).
The global post-thaw SR was significantly higher for oocytes vitrified using an open system (93.2%) compared to those vitrified using a closed one (64.5%; P<0.001). On the contrary, there was no significant difference in terms of global MRR and MR (82.1% vs. 87.5% and 60.7% vs. 61.2% using closed and open system respectively). The SR, MRR and the MR were not significantly different when vitrified oocytes were stored in VPN or LN (91.6, 83.8, 64.5% vs. 93.9, 89.8, 59.1% respectively).
Taking into account the limits of our protocol, the open vitrification system remains the more efficient system. The use of sterile liquid nitrogen for oocyte vitrification and the subsequent storage in vapor phase of nitrogen could minimize the hypothetical risks of biological and chemical contaminations.
使用开放式设备进行卵母细胞玻璃化冷冻被认为是微生物和化学污染的一个来源，而使用封闭式设备可避免此类污染。本研究的主要目的是比较两种玻璃化冷冻方案：封闭式和开放式系统。次要目的是研究在氮气气相（VPN）中储存对使用开放式系统玻璃化冷冻的卵母细胞的影响，并将其与在液氮（LN）中储存的情况进行比较。
2014年11月至2015年5月期间，44例患者纳入我们的研究。共214枚卵母细胞在生发泡（GV）期、中期I（0PB）和中期II（1PB）期进行了玻璃化冷冻。我们使用封闭式玻璃化冷冻设备冷冻了96枚卵母细胞（59枚GV/37枚0PB），使用开放式设备冷冻了118枚卵母细胞（57枚GV/31枚0PB/30枚1PB）。然后将玻璃化冷冻的卵母细胞储存在LN或VPN中。主要观察指标为解冻后的存活率（SR）、减数分裂恢复率（MRR）和成熟率（MR）。
与使用封闭式系统玻璃化冷冻的卵母细胞相比，使用开放式系统玻璃化冷冻的卵母细胞解冻后的总体SR显著更高（93.2% vs. 64.5%；P<0.001）。相反，总体MRR和MR方面无显著差异（封闭式和开放式系统分别为82.1% vs. 87.5%和60.7% vs. 61.2%）。当玻璃化冷冻的卵母细胞储存在VPN或LN中时，SR、MRR和MR无显著差异（分别为91.6%、83.8%、64.5% vs. 93.9%、89.8%、59.1%）。
考虑到我们方案的局限性，开放式玻璃化冷冻系统仍然是更有效的系统。使用无菌液氮进行卵母细胞玻璃化冷冻并随后储存在氮气气相中可将生物和化学污染的潜在风险降至最低。
