Summers D, Check J H, Choe J K
Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2016;43(3):330-1.
To compare the efficacy of vitrification of 2 pronuclear and day 3 cleavage stage embryo vs. a modified slow freeze protocol that historically has achieved good survival and pregnancy rates at these stages.
Embryos were randomly assigned by day to freezing at the 2 proncular stage or day 3 cleavage stage embryos by either vitrification or a modified slow freeze protocol. Comparisons were made for survival rate, cleaveage rate, and pregnancy rate.
The results were comparable with a slight edge to vitrification. Only the implantation rates of day 3 cleavage staged embryos (75% vs. 30.4%) showed a significant difference.
Vitrification seems to be equally or possibly slightly superior to freezing embryos at the 2 pronuclear or day 3 cleavage stage vs. a modified slow freeze protocol that had been previously found to be superior to the slow freeze method of LaSalle-Testart.
比较双原核期和第3天卵裂期胚胎玻璃化冷冻与一种改良慢速冷冻方案的效果，该改良方案在这些阶段历来具有良好的存活率和妊娠率。
根据日期将胚胎随机分配，通过玻璃化冷冻或改良慢速冷冻方案，在双原核期或第3天卵裂期进行冷冻。比较存活率、卵裂率和妊娠率。
结果相当，玻璃化冷冻略占优势。仅第3天卵裂期胚胎的着床率（75%对30.4%）显示出显著差异。
与先前发现优于拉萨尔 - 泰斯塔尔慢速冷冻方法的改良慢速冷冻方案相比，玻璃化冷冻在双原核期或第3天卵裂期冷冻胚胎方面似乎同样有效或可能略胜一筹。
