Background: Laser-assisted hatching (LAH) stands as the predominant technique for removing the zona pellucida (ZP) in embryos, primarily consisting of two methods: drilling laser-assisted hatching (D-LAH) and thinning laser-assisted hatching (T-LAH). Presently, both methods have limitations, and their comparative efficacy for embryo implantation and clinical pregnancy remains uncertain. Aim: Evaluate the impact of D-LAH and T-LAH on clinical pregnancy rates within assisted reproductive technology (ART). Methods: We systematically searched electronic databases including PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library until July 20, 2022. This study encompassed observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). A 95% confidence interval (CI) was utilized for assessing the risk ratio (RR) of pregnancy outcomes. The level of heterogeneity was measured using I² statistics, considering a value exceeding 50% as indicative of substantial heterogeneity. Results: The meta-analysis scrutinized 9 studies involving 2405 clinical pregnancies from D-LAH and 2239 from T-LAH. Findings suggested no considerable variation in the clinical pregnancy rates between the two techniques (RR = 0.93, 95% CI: 0.79–1.10, I² = 71%, P = 0.41). Subgroup analyses also revealed no substantial differences. However, D-LAH exhibited a notably higher occurrence of singleton pregnancies compared to T-LAH (RR = 2.28, 95% CI: 1.08–4.82, I² = 89%, P = 0.03). There were no noteworthy distinctions observed in other secondary outcomes encompassing implantation rate, multiple pregnancies, ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, premature birth, and live birth. Conclusion: Both the primary findings and subgroup analyses showed no marked variance in clinical pregnancy rates between D-LAH and T-LAH. Therefore, patients with varying conditions should select their preferred LAH technique after assessing their individual situation. However, due to the restricted number of studies involved, accurately gauging the influence of these laser techniques on clinical outcomes is challenging, necessitating further RCTs and high-quality studies to enhance the success rate of ART. Trial registration: PROSPERO: CRD42022347066.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03384-8.