参考文献

［1］Mortimer ST, Mortimer D. Quality and Risk Management in the IVF Laboratory. 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

［2］Elder K, den Bergh MV, Woodward B. Troubleshooting and Problem-Solving in the IVF Laboratory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

［3］Varghese AC, Sjöblom P, Jayaprakasan K. In A Practical Guide to Setting Up IVF Lab and Embryo Culture Systems and Running the Unit. Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers, 2013.

［4］Glujovsky D, Farquhar C, Quinteiro Retamar AM, et al. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2016, 6: CD002118.

［5］Embryology ESIGO, Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine. Electronic address cbgi. The Vienna consensus: report of an expert meeting on the development of ART laboratory performance indicators. Reprod Biomed Online, 2017, 35 (5): 494-510.

［6］Holden EC, Kashani BN, Morelli SS, et al. Improved outcomes after blastocyststage frozen-thawed embryo transfers compared with cleavage stage: a Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies Clinical Outcomes Reporting System study. Fertil Steril, 2018, 110 (1): 89-94.

［7］Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Blastocyst culture and transfer in clinically assisted reproduction: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril, 2018, 110 (7): 1246-1252.

［8］Glujovsky D, Farquhar C. Cleavage-stage or blastocyst transfer: what are the benefits and harms? Fertil Steril, 2016, 106 (2): 244-250.

［9］Martins WP, Nastri CO, Rienzi, et al. Blastocyst vs cleavage-stage embryo transfer: systematic review and meta-analysis of reproductive outcomes. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2017,49 (5): 583-591.

［10］Martins WP, Nastri CO, Rienzi L, et al. Obstetrical and perinatal outcomes following blastocyst transfer compared to cleavage transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod, 2016, 31 (11): 2561-2569.

［11］Maheshwari A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S. Should we be promoting embryo transfer at blastocyst stage? Reprod Biomed Online, 2016, 32 (2): 142-146.

［12］Alviggi C, Conforti A, Carbone IF, et al. Influence of cryopreservation on perinatal outcome after blastocyst vs cleavage-stage embryo transfer: systematic review and metaanalysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2018, 51 (1): 54-63.

［13］Zhu Q, Wang N, Wang B, et al. The risk of birth defects among children born after vitrified blastocyst transfers and those born after fresh and vitrified cleavage-stage embryo transfers. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2018, 298 (4): 833-840.

［14］Castello D, Cobo A, Mestres E, et al. Pre-clinical validation of a closed surface system (Cryotop SC) for the vitrification of oocytes and embryos in the mouse model. Cryobiology, 2018, 81: 107-116.

［15］Vajta G, Rienzi L, Ubaldi FM. Open versus closed systems for vitrification of human oocytes and embryos. Reprod Biomed Online, 2015, 30 (4): 325-333.

［16］De Munck N, Belva F, Van de Velde H, et al. Closed oocyte vitrification and storage in an oocyte donation programme: obstetric and neonatal outcome. Hum Reprod, 2016, 31 (5): 1024-1033.

［17］De Munck N, Santos-Ribeiro S, Stoop D, et al. Open versus closed oocyte vitrification in an oocyte donation programme: a prospective randomized sibling oocyte study. Hum Reprod, 2016, 31 (2): 377-384.

［18］Gook DA, Choo B, Bourne H, et al. Closed vitrification of human oocytes and blastocysts: outcomes from a series of clinical cases. J Assist Reprod Genet, 2016, 33 (9): 1247-1252.

［19］Papatheodorou A, Vanderzwalmen P, Panagiotidis Y, et al. How does closed system vitrification of human oocytes affect the clinical outcome? A prospective, observational, cohort, noninferiority trial in an oocyte donation program. Fertil Steril, 2016, 106 (6): 1348-1355.

［20］Papatheodorou A, Vanderzwalmen P, Panagiotidis Y, et al. Open versus closed oocyte vitrification system: a prospective randomized sibling-oocyte study. Reprod Biomed Online, 2013, 26 (6): 595-602.

［21］Stoop D, De Munck N, Jansen E, et al. Clinical validation of a closed vitrification system in an oocyte-donation programme. Reprod Biomed Online, 2012, 24 (2): 180-185.

［22］Chen Y, Zheng X, Yan J, et al. Neonatal outcomes after the transfer of vitrified blastocysts: closed versus open vitrification system. Reprod Biol Endocrinol, 2013, 11: 107.

［23］Hashimoto S, Amo A, Hama S, et al. A closed system supports the developmental competence of human embryos after vitrification: Closed vitrification of human embryos. J Assist Reprod Genet, 2013, 30 (3): 371-376.

［24］Kuwayama M, Vajta G, Ieda S, et al. Comparison of open and closed methods for vitrif ication of human embryos and the elimination of potential contamination. Reprod Biomed Online, 2005, 11 (5): 608-614.

［25］Panagiotidis Y, Vanderzwalmen P, Prapas Y, et al. Open versus closed vitrification of blastocysts from an oocyte-donation programme: a prospective randomized study. Reprod Biomed Online, 2013, 26 (5): 470-476.

［26］Bonetti A, Cervi M, Tomei F, et al. Ultrastructural evaluation of human metaphaseⅡ oocytes after vitrification: closed versus open devices. Fertil Steril, 2011, 95 (3): 928-935.

［27］Youm HS, Choi JR, Oh D, et al. Closed versus open vitrification for human blastocyst cryopreservation: A meta-analysis. Cryobiology, 2017, 77: 64-70.

［28］Tedder RS, Zuckerman MA, Goldstone AH, et al. Hepatitis B transmission from contaminated cryopreservation tank. Lancet, 1995, 346 (8968): 137-140.

［29］Molina I, Mari M, Martinez JV, et al. Bacterial and fungal contamination risks in human oocyte and embryo cryopreservation: open versus closed vitrification systems. Fertil Steril,2016, 106 (1): 127-132.

［30］Savasi V, Oneta M, Parrilla B, et al. Should HCV discordant couples with a seropositive male partner be treated with assisted reproduction techniques (ART)？Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2013, 167 (2): 181-184.

［31］Vitorino RL, Grinsztejn BG, de Andrade CA, et al. Systematic review of the effectiveness and safety of assisted reproduction techniques in couples serodiscordant for human immunodeficiency virus where the man is positive. Fertil Steril, 2011, 95 (5): 1684-1690.

［32］George MA, Braude PR, Johnson MH, et al. Quality control in the IVF laboratory: in-vitro and in-vivo development of mouse embryos is unaffected by the quality of water used in culture media. Hum Reprod, 1989, 4 (7): 826-831.