OBJECTIVETo evaluate the safety and risk of cryopreservation in female fertility preservation.

DATA SOURCESThe data analyzed in this review were the English articles from 1980 to 2013 from journal databases, primarily PubMed and Google scholar. The criteria used in the literature search show as following: (1) human; embryo; cryopreservation/freezing/vitrification, (2) human; oocyte/immature oocyte; cryopreservation/ freezing/vitrification, (3) human; ovarian tissue transplantation; cryopreservation/freezing/vitrification, (4) human; aneuploidy/DNA damage/epigenetic; cryopreservation/freezing/vitrification, and (5) human; fertility preservation; maternal age.

STUDY SELECTIONThe risk ratios based on survival rate, maturation rate, fertilization rate, cleavage rate, implantation rate, pregnancy rate, and clinical risk rate were acquired from relevant meta-analysis studies. These studies included randomized controlled trials or studies with one of the primary outcome measures covering cryopreservation of human mature oocytes, embryos, and ovarian tissues within the last 7 years (from 2006 to 2013, since the pregnancy rates of oocyte vitrification were significantly increased due to the improved techniques). The data involving immature oocyte cryopreservation obtained from individual studies was also reviewed by the authors.

RESULTSVitrifications of mature oocytes and embryos obtained better clinical outcomes and did not increase the risks of DNA damage, spindle configuration, embryonic aneuploidy, and genomic imprinting as compared with fresh and slow-freezing procedures, respectively.

CONCLUSIONSBoth embryo and oocyte vitrifications are safe applications in female fertility preservation.