Good oncologic results and vocal outcomes with no difference between controls and subepithelial and subligamental cordectomies support the use of CO2 laser endoscopic surgery as the first line of treatment for early glottic cancer.

Pre-operative use of local and/or systemic corticosteroids in FESS, results in significantly reduced blood loss, shorter operative time and improved surgical field quality. Studies are limited on the intra-operative use of corticosteroids to reduce postoperative pain. Postoperative corticosteroids improve postoperative endoscopic scores in CRS and recurrence rates in cases of CRSwNP.

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the use of routine hysteroscopy prior to starting the first IVF cycle on treatment outcome in asymptomatic women. Searches were conducted on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, National Research Register and ISI Conference Proceedings. The main outcome measures were clinical pregnancy and live birth rates achieved in the index IVF cycle. One randomized and five non-randomized controlled studies including a total of 3179 participants were included comparing hysteroscopy with no intervention in the cycle preceding the first IVF cycle. There was a significantly higher clinical pregnancy rate (relative risk, RR, 1.44, 95% CI 1.08-1.92, P=0.01) and LBR (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00-1.67, P=0.05) in the subsequent IVF cycle in the hysteroscopy group. The number needed to treat after hysteroscopy to achieve one additional clinical pregnancy was 10 (95% CI 7-14) and live birth was 11 (95% CI 7-16). Hysteroscopy in asymptomatic woman prior to their first IVF cycle could improve treatment outcome when performed just before commencing the IVF cycle. Robust and high-quality randomized trials to confirm this finding are warranted. Currently, there is evidence that performing hysteroscopy (camera examination of the womb cavity) before starting IVF treatment could increase the chance of pregnancy in the subsequent IVF cycle in women who had one or more failed IVF cycles. However, recommendations regarding the efficacy of routine use of hysteroscopy prior to starting the first IVF treatment cycle are lacking. We reviewed systematically the trials related to the impact of hysteroscopy prior to starting the first IVF cycle on treatment outcomes of pregnancy rate and live birth rate in asymptomatic women. Literature searches were conducted in all major database and all randomized and non-randomized controlled trials were included in our study (up to March 2013). The main outcome measures were the clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate. The secondary outcome measure was the procedure related complication rate. A total of 3179 women, of which 1277 had hysteroscopy and 1902 did not have a hysteroscopy prior to first IVF treatment, were included in six controlled studies. Hysteroscopy in asymptomatic woman prior to their first IVF cycle was found to be associated with improved chance of achieving a pregnancy and live birth when performed just before commencing the IVF cycle. The procedure was safe. Larger studies are still required to confirm our findings.

The aim of this study was to update the evidence on the surgical management of endometriosis-associated pain. Does laparoscopic excision offer any benefits over laparoscopic ablation? This is a systematic review and meta-analysis in which we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Institute for Scientific Information conference proceedings, the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry, the Register and Meta-register for randomized controlled trials, the World Health Organization trials search portal, the Cochrane Library, and the British Library of electronic theses. Three randomized controlled trials were included, which enrolled 335 participants with a sample size per study ranging from 24 to 178 participants. Of these 3 studies, data from 2 could be pooled for meta-analysis. The primary outcome measure was the reduction in the visual analog scale score for dysmenorrhea. The secondary outcome measures included the reduction in the visual analog scale score for dyspareunia, dyschezia, and chronic pelvic pain and the reduction in Endometriosis Health Profile-30 core pain scores. The meta-analysis showed that the excision group had a significantly greater reduction in symptoms of dysmenorrhea (mean difference [MD] = 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.02 to 2.00; p = .05) and dyschezia (MD = 1.31; 95% CI, 0.33-2.29; p = .009) compared with ablation. The symptoms of dyspareunia showed a nonsignificant benefit with excision (MD = 0.96; 95% CI, -0.07 to 1.99; p = .07). Data from 1 study showed a significant reduction in chronic pelvic pain (MD = 2.57; 95% CI, 1.27-3.87; p = .0001) and Endometriosis Health Profile-30 core pain scores (MD = 13.20; 95% CI, 3.70-22.70; p = .006) with the excision group compared with the ablation group. The limited available evidence shows that at 12 months postsurgery, symptoms of dysmenorrhea, dyschezia, and chronic pelvic pain secondary to endometriosis showed a significantly greater improvement with laparoscopic excision compared with ablation.

SummaryBackground: The role of tranexamic acid in patients undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) is not clearly defined. The aim of our study is to systematically review the existing evidence on the role of tranexamic acid in patients undergoing ESS.Methodology: Systematic search of MEDLINE (1950MEDLINE ( -2013, EMBASE (1980EMBASE ( -2013, metaRegister, Cochrane Library and ISI conference proceedings was carried out. Results:Five randomised controlled trials with 192 patients receiving tranexamic acid and 196 controls were included. Metaanalysis demonstrated that mean estimated blood loss was significantly lower, and surgical field quality was significantly better in tranexamic acid group. There was no significant difference in mean operative time between the two groups. No significant adverse effects were noted in either of the groups. Conclusion:Intra-operative use of local and systemic tranexamic acid in ESS, results in significantly reduced estimated blood loss and improved surgical field quality. There is no statistically significant difference seen in operative time and incidence of side effects. Well-conducted larger RCTs using validated objective outcome measures and reporting on minor and major complications are required.