4.6 Article

Cryopreservation of ovarian tissue for a decade in Denmark: a view of the technique

Journal

REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE
Volume 22, Issue 2, Pages 162-171

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.10.015

Keywords

premature ovarian failure; cryopreservation; autotransplantation; cancer; assisted reproductive techniques; fertility preservation

Funding

  1. Danish Cancer Society [DP05112/R2-A41-09-S2]
  2. Novo Nordic Foundation
  3. University Hospital of Copenhagen

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper presents the Danish 10-year experience (1999-2009) with cryopreservation (n = 386) and autotransplantation of ovarian tissue (n = 18). Before applying the technique to humans, the method was thoroughly tested and validated. The cryoprotectant solution was chosen after histological evaluation of mouse and human ovarian tissue after freezing with four different combinations of cryoprotectants. Viability was confirmed by transplantation of frozen-thawed human ovarian tissue (n = 49) to oophorectomized Nude mice. Viability after transport of fresh tissue 4-5 h prior to freezing had previously been validated. Overnight transport of fresh ovarian tissue prior to cryopreservation was evaluated when human ovarian tissue was kept on ice for 20 h and then cryopreserved. The thawed ovarian tissue was transplanted to an oophorectomized Nude mouse and histology confirmed viability. In Denmark 12 women have received a total of 18 autotransplantations of ovarian tissue. All women resumed ovarian function and three healthy babies were born to two women. In both women, the tissue was transported on ice for 4-5 h prior to cryopreservation. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation is an important method for fertility preservation; however, before applying the method clinically, each laboratory should perform thorough validation of their technique. (C) 2010, Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available