Intrauterine instillation of diluted seminal plasma at oocyte pick-up does not increase the IVF pregnancy rate: a double-blind, placebo controlled, randomized study.

STUDY QUESTION Does intrauterine application of diluted seminal plasma (SP) at the time of ovum pick-up improve the pregnancy rate by ≥14% in IVF treatment? SUMMARY ANSWER Intrauterine instillation of diluted SP at the time of ovum pick-up is unlikely to increase the pregnancy rate by ≥14% in IVF. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY SP modulates endometrial function, and sexual intercourse around the time of embryo transfer has been suggested to increase the likelihood of pregnancy. A previous randomized double-blind pilot study demonstrated a strong trend towards increased pregnancy rates following the intracervical application of undiluted SP. As this study was not conclusive and as the finding could have been confounded by sexual intercourse, the intrauterine application of diluted SP was investigated in the present trial. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A single-centre, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, superiority trial on women undergoing IVF was conducted from April 2007 until February 2012 at the University Department of Gynaecological Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine, Heidelberg, Germany. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The study was powered to detect an 14% increase in the clinical pregnancy rate and two sequential tests were planned using the Pocock spending function. At the first interim analysis, 279 women had been randomly assigned to intrauterine diluted SP (20% SP in saline from the patients' partner) (n = 138) or placebo (n = 141) at the time of ovum pick-up. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The clinical pregnancy rate per randomized patient was 37/138 (26.8%) in the SP group and 41/141 (29.1%) in the placebo group (difference: -2.3%, 95% confidence interval of the difference: -12.7 to +8.2%; P = 0.69). The live birth rate per randomized patient was 28/138 (20.3%) in the SP group and 33/141 (23.4%) in the placebo group (difference: -3.1%, 95% confidence interval of the difference: -12.7 to +6.6%; P = 0.56). It was decided to terminate the trial due to futility at the first interim analysis, at a conditional power of 62%. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The confidence interval of the difference remains wide, thus clinically relevant differences cannot reliably be excluded based on this single study. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The results of this study cast doubt on the validity of the concept that SP increases endometrial receptivity and thus implantation in humans. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) Funding was provided by the department's own research facilities. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER DRKS00004615.

Endoscopic and Open Release Similarly Safe for the Treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND The Endoscopic Release of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (ECTR) is a minimal invasive approach for the treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. There is scepticism regarding the safety of this technique, based on the assumption that this is a rather "blind" procedure and on the high number of severe complications that have been reported in the literature. PURPOSE To evaluate whether there is evidence supporting a higher risk after ECTR in comparison to the conventional open release. METHODS We searched MEDLINE (January 1966 to November 2013), EMBASE (January 1980 to November 2013), the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register (November 2013) and CENTRAL (2013, issue 11 in The Cochrane Library). We hand-searched reference lists of included studies. We included all randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials (e.g. study using alternation, date of birth, or case record number) that compare any ECTR with any OCTR technique. Safety was assessed by the incidence of major, minor and total number of complications, recurrences, and re-operations.The total time needed before return to work or to return to daily activities was also assessed. We synthesized data using a random-effects meta-analysis in STATA. We conducted a sensitivity analysis for rare events using binomial likelihood. We judged the conclusiveness of meta-analysis calculating the conditional power of meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS ECTR is associated with less time off work or with daily activities. The assessment of major complications, reoperations and recurrence of symptoms does not favor either of the interventions. There is an uncertain advantage of ECTR with respect to total minor complications (more transient paresthesia but fewer skin-related complications). Future studies are unlikely to alter these findings because of the rarity of the outcome. The effect of a learning curve might be responsible for reduced recurrences and reoperations with ECTR in studies that are more recent, although formal statistical analysis failed to provide evidence for such an association. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I.