背景:激光辅助孵化(LAH)是去除胚胎中透明带(ZP)的主要技术,主要包括两种方法:钻孔激光辅助孵化(D-LAH)和减薄激光辅助孵化(T-LAH)。目前,这两种方法都有局限性,它们对胚胎植入和临床妊娠的比较疗效仍不确定。
目的:评估D-LAH和T-LAH对辅助生殖技术(ART)中临床妊娠率的影响。
方法:我们系统地搜索了电子数据库,包括PubMed,WebofScience,和科克伦图书馆,直到2022年7月20日。本研究包括观察性研究和随机对照试验(RCTs)。使用95%置信区间(CI)评估妊娠结局的风险比(RR)。异质性的水平是用I2统计量来衡量的,考虑超过50%的值作为实质性异质性的指示。
结果:荟萃分析审查了9项研究,涉及D-LAH的2405例临床妊娠和T-LAH的2239例临床妊娠。研究结果表明,两种技术之间的临床妊娠率没有显着差异(RR=0.93,95%CI:0.79-1.10,I2=71%,P=0.41)。亚组分析也显示没有实质性差异。然而,与T-LAH相比,D-LAH的单胎妊娠发生率明显更高(RR=2.28,95%CI:1.08-4.82,I2=89%,P=0.03)。在包括植入率在内的其他次要结局中没有观察到值得注意的差异,多胎妊娠,正在怀孕,流产,早产,和活产。
结论:主要发现和亚组分析均显示D-LAH和T-LAH之间的临床妊娠率无明显差异。因此,不同情况的患者应在评估其个体情况后选择首选的LAH技术.然而,由于涉及的研究数量有限,准确衡量这些激光技术对临床结果的影响是具有挑战性的,需要进一步的随机对照试验和高质量的研究来提高ART的成功率。
背景:PROSPERO:CRD42022347066。
BACKGROUND: Laser-assisted hatching (LAH) stands as the predominant technique for removing the zona pellucida (ZP) in embryos, primarily consisting of two methods: drilling laser-assisted hatching (D-LAH) and thinning laser-assisted hatching (T-LAH). Presently, both methods have limitations, and their comparative efficacy for embryo implantation and clinical pregnancy remains uncertain.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the impact of D-LAH and T-LAH on clinical pregnancy rates within assisted reproductive technology (ART).
METHODS: We systematically searched electronic databases including PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library until July 20, 2022. This study encompassed observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A 95% confidence interval (CI) was utilized for assessing the risk ratio (RR) of pregnancy outcomes. The level of heterogeneity was measured using I2 statistics, considering a value exceeding 50% as indicative of substantial heterogeneity.
RESULTS: The meta-analysis scrutinized 9 studies involving 2405 clinical pregnancies from D-LAH and 2239 from T-LAH. Findings suggested no considerable variation in the clinical pregnancy rates between the two techniques (RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.79-1.10, I2 = 71%, P = 0.41). Subgroup analyses also revealed no substantial differences. However, D-LAH exhibited a notably higher occurrence of singleton pregnancies compared to T-LAH (RR = 2.28, 95% CI: 1.08-4.82, I2 = 89%, P = 0.03). There were no noteworthy distinctions observed in other secondary outcomes encompassing implantation rate, multiple pregnancies, ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, premature birth, and live birth.
CONCLUSIONS: Both the primary findings and subgroup analyses showed no marked variance in clinical pregnancy rates between D-LAH and T-LAH. Therefore, patients with varying conditions should select their preferred LAH technique after assessing their individual situation. However, due to the restricted number of studies involved, accurately gauging the influence of these laser techniques on clinical outcomes is challenging, necessitating further RCTs and high-quality studies to enhance the success rate of ART.
BACKGROUND: PROSPERO: CRD42022347066.