BackgroundThe objective of this study was to carry out a systematic review and meta-analysis of embryologic and clinical outcomes following open versus closed vitrification of human oocytes and embryos.MethodsAn electronic literature search was conducted in main electronic databases up to June 30, 2018 using the following key terms: oocyte', embryo', blastocyst', vitrification', cryopreservation', device', survival rate', pregnancy rate', etc. A meta-analysis was performed using a random effect model to estimate the value of risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were carried out to further confirm the results.ResultsTwelve (Eight prospective and four retrospective) studies comparing open versus closed vitrification of human oocytes or embryos were included. For prospective studies on oocytes, no evidence for a significant difference in cryosurvival rate (RR=0.91, 95% CI: 0.80-1.03, P=0.14; n=2048) or clinical pregnancy rate (RR=1.29, 95% CI: 0.80-2.06, P=0.30; n=150) was observed. Additionally, there were no significant differences between the two methods concerning secondary endpoints included positive HCG rate, implantation rate, miscarriage rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, live birth rate, cancellation rate, babies born per transferred blastocysts, or multiple birth rate (P>0.05). The results of the retrospective studies were similar as the prospective studies.ConclusionsIt is still impossible to conclude that closed vitrification system could be a substitution for open system in human oocyte and embryo cryopreservation based on current evidence. Therefore, more well-designed prospective studies addressing these issues are still warranted.