Back to all available

Safety and Efficacy of the Automated Liquid-Phase Embryo Storage, Hatchferti: A Pilot Study

biotechnology
gynecology-and-obstetrics

Abstract

To date, no fully automated liquid-phase embryo tank has been implemented in ART laboratory and its impact on the safety and efficacy of embryo storage remain s unknown. To evaluate its performance, the Hatchferti group (HG) stored a total of 230 clinically discarded 3PN zygotes (n=143) and Day 3 cleavage embryos (n=87) from September 2023 to April 2024. These embryos were vitrified and stored for 30, 90, and 180 days, respectively, and their post-thaw recovery and culture results were statistically analyzed and compared with the 2023 laboratory annual data (n=32520) . In the comparison between the two groups, the cleavage rate after recovery of 3PN zygote was compared to the fresh 2PN zygote cleavage rate. A 7-day period of workload data showed that the operating time in liquid nitrogen tank group (CG) required for storage and retrieval were 6.71±1.28 and 39.00±13.42 minutes, respectively, while that in HG were significantly lower (1.95± 0.04 and 0.96± 0.03 minutes respectively, P < 0.05). During the 6-month study period, the temperature readings in the retrieval area were -177.84±1.53℃, and the storage area temperatures were -195.47±2.01℃ and -195.81±0.94℃. The recovery rate of 3PN zygotes and the recovery rate of Day 3 cleavage embryos were both 100%. There was no significant difference in the cleavage rates after recovery between HG ( for the entire experimental period ) and 2023 laboratory annual data ( P > 0.05). In c onclusion , Hatchferti has demonstrated its safety and efficacy, showing promising potential for application in the ART laboratory.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].