From niche to norm: a 13-year single-centre retrospective analysis of oocyte cryopreservation trends in modern India
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20263071Keywords:
Oocyte cryopreservation, Egg freezing, Fertility preservation, India, COVID-19, Utilization rateAbstract
Background: Oocyte cryopreservation (OC) has moved from a niche, largely medically-indicated procedure toward a mainstream fertility preservation option, but India-specific outcome data remain limited. This study aimed to describe demographic trends, oocyte yield, cycle repetition, and utilization patterns among women undergoing planned OC at a single Indian fertility IVF unit over a 13-year period.
Methods: A retrospective cohort of 62 women who underwent planned OC between January 2013 and January 2026 was analysed. Age, indication, number of stimulation cycles, MII oocyte yield, and utilization status were recorded. Appropriate descriptive and inferential statistics were used, including comparison of pre- and post-COVID periods.
Results: The cohort comprised 62 patients undergoing 70 stimulation cycles, predominantly for elective/social indications (85.5%), with oncofertility accounting for 14.5% of cases. The most common age group was 30-34 years (32.3%), with a mean yield of 6.2 ± 4.1 MII oocytes per patient. Oocyte yield declined significantly with age (Spearman ρ = -0.26, p = 0.041). The annual rate of patients undergoing OC increased approximately 4-fold in the post-COVID era (rate ratio 4.00, 95% CI 2.21-7.25, p<0.001). Only 9.68% of patients underwent repeated stimulation cycles, with the highest proportion of repeat cycles occurring in the 34-36-year age group. However, utilization of cryopreserved oocytes remained low (9.7%, 95% CI 3.6-19.9%).
Conclusions: Our study highlights positive shifting trends even in a developing country like India, where oocyte cryopreservation is evolving as an accepted method for fertility preservation. Societal challenges, myths, and financial limitations underscore the low utilization rates, emphasizing the need for strengthened education and support to empower women in planning their reproductive journeys.
References
Katsani D, Paraschou N, Panagouli E, Tsarna E, Sergentanis TN, Vlahos N, et al. Social egg freezing: a trend or modern reality? J Clin Med. 2024;13(2):390.
Jain D, Singh N. Preserving possibilities: the rising demand for egg freezing in a shifting social landscape. Int J Soc Impact. 2025;10(3).
Oktay K, Harvey BE, Partridge AH, Quinn GP, Reinecke J, Taylor HS, et al. Fertility preservation in patients with cancer: ASCO clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(19):1994-2001.
Cobo A, Garcia-Velasco JA, Coello A, Domingo J, Pellicer A, Remohí J. Oocyte vitrification as an efficient option for elective fertility preservation. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(3):755-64.e8.
Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Mature oocyte cryopreservation: a guideline. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(1):37-43.
Wu M, Zhu Q, Huang Y, Tang W, Dai J, Guo Y, et al. Ovarian reserve in reproductive-aged patients with cancer before gonadotoxic treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Open. 2023;2023(3):hoad024.
Hirsch A, Hirsh Raccah B, Rotem R, Hyman JH, Ben-Ami I, Tsafrir A. Planned oocyte cryopreservation: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2024;30(5):558-68.
Goldman RH, Racowsky C, Farland LV, Munné S, Ribustello L, Fox JH. Predicting the likelihood of live birth for elective oocyte cryopreservation: a counseling tool for physicians and patients. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(4):853-9.
Doyle JO, Richter KS, Lim J, Stillman RJ, Graham JR, Tucker MJ. Successful elective and medically indicated oocyte vitrification and warming for autologous in vitro fertilization, with predicted birth probabilities for fertility preservation according to number of cryopreserved oocytes and age at retrieval. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(2):459-66.e2.
Cil AP, Bang H, Oktay K. Age-specific probability of live birth with oocyte cryopreservation: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(2):492-9.e3.
Chronopoulou E, Raperport C, Sfakianakis A, Srivastava G, Homburg R. Elective oocyte cryopreservation for age-related fertility decline. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021;38(5):1177-86.
Huttler A, Koelper N, Mainigi M, Gracia C, Senapati S. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the perception of planned oocyte cryopreservation in the United States. F S Rep. 2022;3(2):145-52.
Lee MB, Siavoshi M, Kwan L, Kroener L. Elective fertility preservation: a national database study on trends in oocyte cryopreservation and oocyte utilization over a 5- to 7-year follow-up period. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2026;234(2):432-9.
Klein JU, Conway NB, Abittan B, Marcinyshyn S, Shafran V, Hennessy D, et al. Freezing first: insights from 8 years of planned oocyte cryopreservation at an “egg freezing clinic”. Fertil Steril. 2026;125(4):671-9.
Blakemore JK, Grifo JA, DeVore SM, Hodes-Wertz B, Berkeley AS. Planned oocyte cryopreservation-10-15-year follow-up: return rates and cycle outcomes. Fertil Steril. 2021;115(6):1511-20.
Jain JK, Paulson RJ. Oocyte cryopreservation. Fertil Steril. 2006;86(4 Suppl):1037-46.
Peschansky C, Patel S, Amir J, Dynia S, Usmani S, Lynn R, et al. Picture perfect?: determining the clinical utilization of artificial intelligence in oocyte cryopreservation. Fertil Steril. 2021;116(3 Suppl):e157.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
