Shirasawa Hiromitsu, Kumazawa Yukiyo, Sato Wataru, Iwasawa Takuya, Togashi Kazue, Ono Natsuki, Fujishima Ayaka, Takahashi Kazumasa, Maeda Eri, Terada Yukihiro
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan, Hondo 1-1-1, Akita City, Akita Prefecture, 10-0825, Japan.
Department of Environmental Health Science and Public Health, Akita University Graduate School of Medicine, Akita, Japan, Hondo 1-1-1, Akita City, Akita Prefecture, 10-0825, Japan.
Heliyon. 2023 Aug 11;9(8):e19074. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19074. eCollection 2023 Aug.
How does the cost-related oocyte cryopreservation (OoC) vary by the facility in Japan, and what data is provided on the websites about OoC procedures?
Website survey. The websites of all 621 facilities that provide assistive reproductive technology registered in Japan were surveyed in 2021. Data included the rates of explicit statements regarding the provision of OoC for only medical reasons (medical only group) or non-medical reasons (non-medical group). Based on whether or not facilities that perform OoC clearly stated the cost on their websites, we compared the costs of OoC and annual storage cost between medical only and non-medical groups. Furthermore, we examined the stated number of OoC procedures performed and their clinical outcomes.
Of the 621 facilities, 146 (23.5%) clearly stated that they offer OoC on their websites. Of the 88 medical only groups and 58 non-medical groups, 24 (27.3%) and 42 (72.4%) clearly stated the OoC cost, and 27 (30.7%) and 44 (75.9%) clearly states the annual oocyte storage cost, respectively. The OoC costs were significantly higher for the non-medical group than in the medical group. In the medical only group, the annual storage cost remained almost the same regardless of the number of oocytes, while in the non-medical group, the annual storage cost was 2-3 times higher than in the medical only group. Only 16 facilities (16/146, 11.0%) had mentioned the number of OoC procedures, and five facilities (3.4%) provided information on the clinical outcomes after OoC.
Costs related to OoC are higher for the non-medical group in Japan. In addition, the websites contain scant information on the costs and clinical outcomes of OoC.
日本各机构与成本相关的卵母细胞冷冻保存（OoC）情况如何，以及网站上提供了哪些关于OoC程序的数据？
网站调查。2021年对日本注册的所有621家提供辅助生殖技术的机构网站进行了调查。数据包括仅因医疗原因提供OoC（仅医疗组）或非医疗原因（非医疗组）的明确声明率。根据进行OoC的机构是否在其网站上明确列出成本，我们比较了仅医疗组和非医疗组之间的OoC成本和年度存储成本。此外，我们还研究了所声明的OoC程序执行数量及其临床结果。
在621家机构中，有146家（23.5%）在其网站上明确表示提供OoC。在88个仅医疗组和58个非医疗组中，分别有24家（27.3%）和42家（72.4%）明确列出了OoC成本，27家（30.7%）和44家（75.9%）明确列出了年度卵母细胞存储成本。非医疗组的OoC成本显著高于医疗组。在仅医疗组中，无论卵母细胞数量多少，年度存储成本几乎保持不变，而在非医疗组中，年度存储成本比仅医疗组高出2至3倍。只有16家机构（16/146，11.0%）提到了OoC程序的数量，5家机构（3.4%）提供了OoC后的临床结果信息。
在日本，非医疗组与OoC相关的成本更高。此外，网站上关于OoC成本和临床结果的信息很少。
