Methods of Ovarian Tissue Cryopreservation: Is Vitrification Superior to Slow Freezing?—Ovarian Tissue Freezing Methods

After cancer treatment, female survivors often develop ovarian insufficiency or failure. Oocyte and embryo freezing are well-established fertility preservation options, but cannot be applied in pre-pubescent girls, in women with hormone-sensitive malignancies, or when gonadotoxic treatment cannot be delayed. Although ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC) has been used to restore fertility and endocrine function, the relative efficacy of its two major protocols, slow freezing and vitrification, remains controversial. This literature review evaluates clinical and lab-based studies published between January 2012 and June 2020 to determine whether vitrification, the optimal technique for oocyte and embryo cryopreservation, preserves ovarian tissue more effectively than slow freezing. Due to limited clinical data involving ovarian tissue vitrification, most clinical studies focus on slow freezing. Only 9 biochemical studies that directly compare the effects of slow freezing and vitrification of human ovarian tissue were noted. Most studies report no significant difference in follicular morphology and distribution between cryopreservation methods, but these findings must be interpreted in the context of high methodological variability. Discrepant findings regarding the effects of cryopreservation method on follicle viability, gene expression, and hormone production require further evaluation. Early clinical outcomes appear favorable for vitrification, but additional studies and longer term follow-up are needed to establish its efficacy. Sharing data through national or international registries would expedite this analysis. However, even if research corroborates conclusions of no clinical or biochemical difference between cryopreservation methods, the decreased costs and increased efficiency associated with vitrification make this method more accessible and cost-effective.