ArticleJournal of ovarian research2025
Laser-assisted hatching is associated with reduced re-expansion of vitrified-thawed blastocysts and has no significant effect on embryo implantation.
Article in Journal of ovarian research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStudies have shown that vitrified-thawed blastocyst re-expansion capacity is a good predictor of implantation. However, whether assisted hatching (AH) influences re-expansion is currently unstudied. Also, whether AH improves subsequent implantation rate remains highly uncertain.
objectivesTo investigate the impact of AH on re-expansion and subsequent implantation in vitrified-thawed blastocysts transfer cycles.
methodThe absolute initial single vitrified-thawed blastocyst cycles of patients between August 2019 and April 2024 in our center were included in this retrospective cohort study, totaling 4637 cycles. Grouping was performed according to laser-AH or not. Stratified analyses according to different trophoblastic ectoderm (TE) grades were applied (TE were categorized into three different grades (A-C) according to their number and cohesiveness), with specific focus on blastocysts with TE grade of C. Subgroup analyses were then carried out based on blastocyst stage (Day5 or Day6), in which AH and Non-AH were compared separately. Multifactorial regression analyses were performed on the main outcomes to clarify the effect of laser-AH.
resultsThere were no differences in pregnancy outcomes between AH group and Non-AH group, though the blastocyst stage proportions differed. Subgroup analysis based on blastocyst stage still revealed no statistically significant differences in pregnancy outcomes regarding AH or not (both in Day5 and Day6 blastocysts); while AH group had a lower re-expansion rate than Non-AH group in Day6 blastocysts (78.9% vs. 84.0%, P = 0.006). Multifactorial regression showed that AH had no effect on biochemical pregnancy rate in all cycles (aOR: 1.064, 95% CI: 0.938-1.206, P = 0.337), but increased the probability of implantation in TE grade = C cycles (aOR: 1.340, 95% CI: 1.017-1.766, P = 0.038). In the binary regression analysis on re-expansion rate, AH presented a negative effect both in all cycles and in TE grade = C cycles (all cycles: aOR: 0.774, 95% CI: 0.646-0.827, P = 0.005; TE = C cycles: aOR: 0.688, 95% CI: 0.481-0.984, P = 0.040).
conclusionLaser-AH negatively affects the ability of vitrified-thawed blastocysts to re-expand. Laser-AH had no significant effect on implantation in all blastocysts. AH may only be beneficial for the implantation of blastocysts with TE grade C. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.