ORCID Profile
0000-0002-1371-442X
Current Organisation
KU Leuven
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 27-07-2021
Abstract: To compare adnexectomy by vaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (vNOTES) versus laparoscopy. Parallel group, 1:1 single‐centre single‐blinded randomised trial, designed as non‐inferiority study with a margin of 15%. Belgian teaching hospital. Non‐pregnant non‐virgin women with an intact uterus and without obliteration of the pouch of Douglas scheduled to undergo removal of an adnexal mass assessed to be benign on ultrasound by IOTA criteria. Randomisation to laparoscopy (control group) or vNOTES (experimental group). Stratification according to adnexal size. Blinding of participants and outcome assessors by sham incisions. The primary outcome measure was adnexectomy by the allocated technique. Secondary outcomes included duration of surgery, pain scores and analgesics used, quality of life and adverse events. We randomly assigned 67 participants (34 to the vNOTES group and 33 to the laparoscopy group). The primary end point was always reached in both groups: there were no conversions. We performed a sensitivity analysis for the primary outcome, assuming one conversion in the vNOTES group and no conversions in the laparoscopy group: the one‐sided 95% upper limit for the differences in proportions of conversion was estimated as 13%, which is below the predefined non‐inferiority margin of 15%. The secondary outcomes demonstrated a shorter duration of surgery, lower pain scores, lower total dose of analgesics and a trend for more adverse events in the vNOTES group. vNOTES is non‐inferior to laparoscopy for a successful adnexectomy without conversion. vNOTES allowed shorter operating times and less postoperative pain but there was a trend for more adverse events.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2020
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 24-04-2019
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 06-2015
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.009421
Abstract: Recovery of patients within the first 6 months after stroke is well documented, but there has been little research on long-term recovery. The aim of this study was to analyze functional and motor recovery between admission to rehabilitation centres and 5 years after stroke. This follow-up of the Collaborative Evaluation of Rehabilitation in Stroke Across Europe study, included patients from 4 European rehabilitation centres. Patients were assessed on admission, at 2 and 6 months, and 5 years after stroke, using the Barthel Index, Rivermead Motor Assessment Gross Function, Leg and Trunk function, and Arm function. Linear mixed models were used, corrected for baseline characteristics. To account for the drop-out during follow-up, the analysis is likelihood-based (assumption of missingness at random). A total of 532 patients were included in this study, of which 238 were followed up at 5 years post stroke. Mean age at stroke onset was 69 (±10 SD) years, 53% were men, 84% had ischemic strokes, and 53% had left-sided motor impairment. Linear mixed model analysis revealed a significant deterioration for all 4 outcomes between 6 months and 5 years ( P .0001). Scores at 2 months were not statistically significant different from scores at 5 years after stroke. Higher age ( P .0001) and increasing stroke severity on admission ( P .0001) negatively affected long-term functional and motor recovery. Five-year follow-up revealed deterioration in functional and motor outcome, with a return to the level measured at 2 months. Increasing age and increasing stroke severity negatively affected recovery up to 5 years after stroke.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 07-11-2017
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 28-07-2023
No related grants have been discovered for Annouschka Laenen.