Oocyte Cryopreservation: Comparison of Slow Cooling Versus Vitrification Techniques on Oocyte Survival, Fertilization, and Embryo Development

Cryopreservation of oocytes is desirable because it: 1) would allow infertility patients to store excess oocytes instead of embryos, eliminating some of the ethical and religious concerns that accompany embryo storage; 2) permit storage of donor oocytes to avoid donor-recipient synchronization difficulties; and 3) can help women who may face sterilization due to chemotherapy or radiation. Oocyte cryopreservation is therefore gaining in popularity as an option for infertility treatment as well as fertility preservation.

Oocyte cryopreservation using conventional slow-cooling methods has not had much success; however more recent results have provided more optimism (Boldt et al., 2003; Porcu et al., 1997; 2000; 2002; Yang et al., 1998; 1999; 2002; Winslow et al., 2001). Vitrification has also been employed (Hong et al., 1999; Kuleshova et al., 1999; Yoon et al., 2000, 2003; Chung et al 2000; Wu et al., 2001: Kuwayama et al., 2005) with increased oocyte survival rate and live births. Vitrification is performed by suspending the oocytes in a solution containing a high concentration of cryoprotectants and then plunging them directly into liquid nitrogen (Rall and Fahy, 1985). The advantage of this technique is to prevent the formation of ice crystals within the oocyte. However the toxic effect of the high concentration of the cryoprotectant media has been a concern. New vitrification techniques which attempt to accelerate the cooling rate by decreasing the cryosolution volume and concentration, may reduce the potential toxicity. In addition, a more rapid cooling rate results in reduced chilling injury (Vajta et al., 1998).