<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>38(12)</volume><submitter>Gatimel N</submitter><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Purpose&lt;/h4>Does semi-automated vitrification have lower inter-operator variability and better clinical outcomes than manual vitrification?&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>Retrospective analyses of 282 patients whose embryos had been cryopreserved, manually with Irvine®-CBS® (MV) or semi-automatically vitrified with the GAVI® method (AV) (from November 2017 to September 2020). Both techniques were performed during the same period by 5 operators. Inter-operator variability was statistically analyzed between operators who performed the vitrification and those who performed the warming process to compare the intact survival rate (% embryos with 100% intact blastomeres) and the positive survival rate (at least 50% intact blastomeres). Additionally, the complete vitrification time was assessed for the 2 tec</pubmed_abstract><journal>Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics</journal><pagination>3213-3222</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC8666398</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><pubmed_title>Semi-automated versus manual embryo vitrification: inter-operator variability, time-saving, and clinical outcomes.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC8666398</pmcid><pubmed_authors>Moreau J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Leandri RD</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Bettiol C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Parinaud J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Gatimel N</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Semi-automated versus manual embryo vitrification: inter-operator variability, time-saving, and clinical outcomes.</name><description>&lt;h4>Purpose&lt;/h4>Does semi-automated vitrification have lower inter-operator variability and better clinical outcomes than manual vitrification?&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/h4>Retrospective analyses of 282 patients whose embryos had been cryopreserved, manually with Irvine®-CBS® (MV) or semi-automatically vitrified with the GAVI® method (AV) (from November 2017 to September 2020). Both techniques were performed during the same period by 5 operators. Inter-operator variability was statistically analyzed between operators who performed the vitrification and those who performed the warming process to compare the intact survival rate (% embryos with 100% intact blastomeres) and the positive survival rate (at least 50% intact blastomeres). Additionally, the complete vitrification time was assessed for the 2 tec</description><dates><release>2021-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2021 Dec</publication><modification>2025-04-05T09:43:10.678Z</modification><creation>2025-04-05T09:43:10.678Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC8666398</accession><cross_references><pubmed>34755236</pubmed><doi>10.1007/s10815-021-02346-3</doi></cross_references></HashMap>