ClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT04886791VANHUpdated Aug 14, 2025

Vaginal NOTES Hysterectomy Versus Vaginal Hysterectomy

An interventional study of Vaginal NOTES hysterectomy and Vaginal hysterectomy in Hysterectomy, Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery and Vaginal Hysterectomy, sponsored by Zuyderland Medisch Centrum. Recruiting at 2 sites in Netherlands. Open to female participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-08-14.

Sponsored by Zuyderland Medisch Centrum · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

From the registry’s dates

  • Started Jul 2021; still recruiting 5 years 4 months later.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
124
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
Female
01

Study summary

Rationale: Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) is a minimal invasive technique using the natural body orifices like stomach, oesophagus, bladder, rectum and vagina to access the human body for surgery. In 2012, the first vaginal NOTES (vNOTES) hysterectomy was performed. Potential benefits of vNOTES hysterectomy, also called the vaginal assisted NOTES hysterectomy (VANH) are no visible scars, less pain and a shorter hospital stay compared with laparoscopic hysterectomy as shown in the HALON trial. Up to now, no studies have compared the vNOTES hysterectomy with vaginal hysterectomy.

Objective: The aim of this study is to compare the vNOTES hysterectomy with the vaginal hysterectomy for same day-discharge (SDD), complications, treatment related outcomes, post-operative recovery, quality of life and cost-effectiveness.

Study design: The study concerns a single-blinded, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

Study population: Eligible women who fulfill the inclusion criteria and will undergo a hysterectomy for benign indication.

Intervention: The study population will be randomly allocated to the VANH-group, who undergo a vaginal assisted NOTES hysterectomy (intervention group) or the vaginal hysterectomy group (control-group) and the participants will be single blinded. The pre- and postoperative care will be the same for both groups.

Main study parameters/endpoints: Primary outcome is the percentage of patients that underwent the hysterectomy as in SDD setting. A total of 41 patients should be included in the control group and a total of 83 patients in the intervention group, using an enrollment ratio of 1:2, with an alpha of 0.05 and a power of 0.8.

The secondary outcomes are complications, treatment related outcomes, post-operative recovery, quality of life and cost-effectiveness.

Nature and extent of the burden and risks associated with participation, benefit and group relatedness:

vNOTES is a new surgical technique, but a combination of two existing techniques namely the vaginal hysterectomy and the laparoscopic hysterectomy. Only one randomized controlled trial has been published, comparing the total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) with the VANH, which shows no inferiority of the vNOTES technique compared to a laparoscopy. A recent case series study has been published about the complication rate in VANH. There was a total complication rate in the hysterectomy group of 5.2%, in which 1.4% was intra-operative and 3.8% postoperative. Theoretically it is possible that the VANH causes less intra-operative complications because of an improved view during the procedure. No further literature is known about VH versus VANH. Participants of the study should fill in multiple questionnaires before randomization and postoperative about their general health, pain experience and used analgesics.

Read the detailed description

The hysterectomy is one of the most performed gynaecological surgeries worldwide.

In the Netherlands about 14.500 hysterectomies are performed yearly. The most common benign indications to perform a hysterectomy are abnormal uterine bleeding, uterine leiomyomas, endometriosis or adenomyosis, chronic pelvic pain, uterine prolapse, benign ovarian neoplasm, hyperplasia or atypia of the endometrium or cervical dysplasia.

The four approaches to perform a hysterectomy for benign disease are abdominal hysterectomy (AH), vaginal hysterectomy (VH), (total) laparoscopic hysterectomy ((T)LH) and robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH).

VH appears to be superior to the AH, resulting in a quicker recovery. The LH results in a quicker recovery than the AH and VH, but increases the risks of damage to the bladder or ureter. That is why a recent Cochrane review advises to perform a VH when feasible for women undergoing a hysterectomy for a benign indication. When VH is technically not feasible, a LH or AH is performed. LH resulted in more rapid recovery, fewer febrile episodes and less wound complications compared to AH. The RH is not superior compared to the LH and is associated with higher costs.

Since the introduction of laparoscopy, the VH and AH decreased and the rate of LH significantly increased between 2002 and 2012. Performing a LH gives the opportunity to inspect the abdominal cavity and to easily perform an opportunistic salpingectomy compared to VH. An opportunistic salpingectomy during a hysterectomy for benign indication might reduce the overall risk of ovarian cancer.

Additionally, patients experience less postoperative pain after a LH compared to a VH and therefore need less post-operative pain medication. Advantages of the VH compared to the LH are a shorter operation duration, no visible scars and a lower chance of dehiscence of the vaginal cuff.

In 2004, a novel approach of endoscopic surgery was described, 'Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES) by researchers at the John Hopkins University. It is a surgical technique using natural orifices of the body (e.g. mouth, anus, urethra, vagina) to perform scarless surgery. The vaginal approach is called the vNOTES technique. NOTES is an emerging field within minimal access surgery, evolves and presents multiple possibilities for innovation and development. The initial approach was trans gastric, but subsequently, NOTES has been evolved, resulting in trans rectal, trans gastric, transvaginal, and transurethral approaches nowadays.

In 2012, the first vNOTES hysterectomy, also called vaginal assisted NOTES hysterectomy (VANH) was performed. vNOTES surgery can be used for different indications, for example hysterectomy, adnexectomy or salpingectomy in case of an ectopic pregnancy.

In 2018, the first randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing TLH with VANH in 70 women was published. This HALON trial showed VANH was non-inferior to TLH. Compared to TLH, surgery time was significantly shorter, patients experience less post-operative pain and same day discharge (SDD) was possible in 77% of the women who underwent the VANH compared to 43% after TLH. Besides, the VANH showed less post-operative complications.

Except for the HALON trial and two retrospective studies and case-control studies, there is little literature about VANH.

No studies have been performed comparing the VH with the VANH. Because the VH is the preferred method to perform a hysterectomy for a benign indication, there is a need to compare VH with VANH and to explore the indications to perform a VANH.

The aim of this study is to compare the VANH with the VH for same day discharge (SDD), complications, treatment related outcomes, post-operative recovery, quality of life and cost-effectiveness.

We hypothesize that patients who underwent a VANH procedure are more often able to be treated in SDD setting.

02

Conditions studied

  • Hysterectomy
  • Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery
  • Vaginal Hysterectomy

Keywords

  • NOTES surgery
  • vNOTES
  • VANH
  • Vaginal hysterectomy
  • Hysterectomy
03

In context

Lead sponsor

Zuyderland Medisch Centrum is the lead sponsor of 64 studies on the registry; 15 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
Female
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Written and orally given
  • 18 years and older
  • Native Dutch speaker or in control of the Dutch language in speaking and writing
  • Indication for hysterectomy for benign indication
  • Possible to perform a VH judged by experienced (resident) gynaecologist during gynaecological examination

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Any for VH (for example, large uterus myomatosus, not enough descensus, etc) as judged by experienced gynaecologist
  • History of more than 1 caesarean section
  • History of endometriosis
  • History of rectal surgery
  • History of pelvic radiation
  • Suspected rectovaginal endometriosis
  • History of pelvic inflammatory disease, especially prior tubo-ovarian or pouch of Douglas abscess or suspected adhesions due to (ruptured) inflammatory disease (for example ruptured appendicitis)
  • Virginity
  • Pregnancy
  • Indication for anterior or posterior colporrhaphy during the same surgery
  • Indication of mid urethral slings
  • Uterus myomatosus will not be an exclusion criteria but the surgeon will indicate if it is possible to remove the uterus vaginally.
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(2)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Informed consent

Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.

You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.

Contraindication

A reason a treatment, test or procedure should not be given to a particular person, such as an allergy, another illness or a medicine they take.

05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Participant)
Enrollment
124 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    VANH hysterectomy

    Access to the peritoneal cavity will be performed similar to vaginal surgery by a circular incision around the cervix, anterior and posterior colpotomy and transsecting the sacro-uterine ligaments. The vNOTES port will be placed to get access to the abdominal cavity and a pneumoperitoneum will be created. After positioning in 20o degree Trendelenburg laparoscopic instruments will be introduced. The peritoneal cavity and ureters are inspected. The hysterectomy is performed by dissecting from caudally to cranially. The fallopian tubes will be removed elective after counselling in the outpatient clinic and the ovaries will be removed on indication only. Haemostasis is checked and the vNOTES port and the uterus are removed trans-vaginally and the pneumoperitoneum is deflated. The vaginal cuff will be closed using a running Vicryl-1 suture. The urinary bladder catheter will be removed directly postoperative.

    Procedure: Vaginal NOTES hysterectomy

  • Active comparator
    Vaginal hysterectomy

    A circumferential incision is made around the cervix. Access to the peritoneal cavity will be performed through anterior and posterior colpotomy. The sacro-uterine ligaments, ligamenta cardinalia uterine arteries will be clamped and dissected. Finally, the ovarian ligament, round ligament and fallopian tubes will be dissected and tied. The uterus will be removed and the vagina will be closed. The urinary bladder catheter will be removed directly postoperative.

    Procedure: Vaginal hysterectomy

Interventions

  • ProcedureVaginal NOTES hysterectomy

    Vaginal assited NOTES hysterectomy

  • ProcedureVaginal hysterectomy

    Vaginal hysterectomy

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Percentage of same day discharge

    Same day discharge

    Time frame: First 24hours after surgery

Secondary outcomes

  1. Complications

    Severity scored by Clavien Dindo classifications

    Time frame: Week 6 after surgery

  2. Treatment related outcomes-1

    Conversion

    Time frame: During surgery

  3. Intended number of salphingectomies in each group

    Intended number of salphingectomies

    Time frame: During surgery

  4. Performed number of salphingectomies in each group

    Performed number of salphingectomies

    Time frame: During surgery

  5. Recovery Index-10 (RI-10) pre- and postoperative

    Recovery Index-10 (RI-10)

    Time frame: Week 12 after surgery

  6. Health- related Quality of LIfe (EQ-5D-5L questionnaire)

    EQ-5D-5L questionnaire

    Time frame: Week 12 after surgery

  7. Costs

    Intervention costs, hospital costs, health care costs outside the hospital (using iMCQ questionnaire)

    Time frame: Week 12 after sugery

  8. Cost effectiveness

    Cost effectiveness between vaginal NOTES hysterectomy versus vaginal hysterectomy comparing the costs as mentioned at outcome 8

    Time frame: Week 12 after surgery

  9. Treatment related outcomes-2

    Time in operating theatre in minutes

    Time frame: During surgery

  10. Treatment related outcomes- 3

    Surgery time in minutes

    Time frame: During surgery

  11. Treatment related outcomes -4

    blood loss in mL

    Time frame: During surgery

  12. Treatment related outcomes -5

    Pain after surgery measured on numeric rating scale

    Time frame: First 24 hours after surgery

  13. Treatment related outcomes -6

    Recovery of pain in first 7 days after surgery measured on numeric rating scale

    Time frame: Day 7 after surgery

  14. Treatment related outcomes - 7

    Use of analgesics

    Time frame: Day 7 after surgery

  15. Treatment related outcomes - 8

    resumption of daily activity

    Time frame: Week 6 after surgery

  16. Treatment related outcomes - 9

    hospital re-admission

    Time frame: Week 6 after surgery

07

Study locations

1 of 2 sites recruiting
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Baekelandt J, De Mulder PA, Le Roy I, Mathieu C, Laenen A, Enzlin P, Weyers S, Mol BW, Bosteels JJ. Authors' reply re: Hysterectomy by transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery versus laparoscopy as a daycare procedure: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2019 Jul;126(8):1078-1079. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.15744. Epub 2019 Apr 24. No abstract available. PubMed 31020729 ↗
  • Baekelandt J, Kapurubandara S. Benign Gynaecological procedures by vaginal Natural Orifice Transluminal Endoscopic Surgery (vNOTES): Complication data from a series of 1000 patients. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021 Jan;256:221-224. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.10.059. Epub 2020 Oct 28. PubMed 33248377 ↗
  • Hammer A, Rositch AF, Kahlert J, Gravitt PE, Blaakaer J, Sogaard M. Global epidemiology of hysterectomy: possible impact on gynecological cancer rates. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Jul;213(1):23-29. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.02.019. Epub 2015 Feb 25. PubMed 25724402 ↗
  • Committee Opinion No. 701 Summary: Choosing The Route Of Hysterectomy For Benign Disease. Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jun;129(6):1149-1150. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002108. PubMed 28538491 ↗
  • Aarts JW, Nieboer TE, Johnson N, Tavender E, Garry R, Mol BW, Kluivers KB. Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Aug 12;2015(8):CD003677. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003677.pub5. PubMed 26264829 ↗
  • Neis KJ, Zubke W, Romer T, Schwerdtfeger K, Schollmeyer T, Rimbach S, Holthaus B, Solomayer E, Bojahr B, Neis F, Reisenauer C, Gabriel B, Dieterich H, Runnenbaum IB, Kleine W, Strauss A, Menton M, Mylonas I, David M, Horn LC, Schmidt D, Gass P, Teichmann AT, Brandner P, Stummvoll W, Kuhn A, Muller M, Fehr M, Tamussino K. Indications and Route of Hysterectomy for Benign Diseases. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S3 Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/070, April 2015). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2016 Apr;76(4):350-364. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-104288. PubMed 27667852 ↗
  • Johnson N, Barlow D, Lethaby A, Tavender E, Curr L, Garry R. Methods of hysterectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2005 Jun 25;330(7506):1478. doi: 10.1136/bmj.330.7506.1478. PubMed 15976422 ↗
  • Driessen SR, Baden NL, van Zwet EW, Twijnstra AR, Jansen FW. Trends in the implementation of advanced minimally invasive gynecologic surgical procedures in the Netherlands. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015 May-Jun;22(4):642-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.01.026. Epub 2015 Feb 3. PubMed 25655043 ↗
  • van Lieshout LAM, Steenbeek MP, De Hullu JA, Vos MC, Houterman S, Wilkinson J, Piek JM. Hysterectomy with opportunistic salpingectomy versus hysterectomy alone. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Aug 28;8(8):CD012858. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012858.pub2. PubMed 31456223 ↗
  • Kalloo AN, Singh VK, Jagannath SB, Niiyama H, Hill SL, Vaughn CA, Magee CA, Kantsevoy SV. Flexible transgastric peritoneoscopy: a novel approach to diagnostic and therapeutic interventions in the peritoneal cavity. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004 Jul;60(1):114-7. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(04)01309-4. PubMed 15229442 ↗
  • Santos BF, Hungness ES. Natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery: progress in humans since white paper. World J Gastroenterol. 2011 Apr 7;17(13):1655-65. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v17.i13.1655. PubMed 21483624 ↗
  • Rolanda C, Lima E, Pego JM, Henriques-Coelho T, Silva D, Moreira I, Macedo G, Carvalho JL, Correia-Pinto J. Third-generation cholecystectomy by natural orifices: transgastric and transvesical combined approach (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2007 Jan;65(1):111-7. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2006.07.050. PubMed 17185089 ↗
  • Nieuwenhuis D, Velthuis S, Bonjer J, Sietses C. [Transanal total mesorectal excision: a new treatment option for rectal cancer]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2014;158(6):A7054. Dutch. PubMed 24495374 ↗
  • Penna M, Hompes R, Arnold S, Wynn G, Austin R, Warusavitarne J, Moran B, Hanna GB, Mortensen NJ, Tekkis PP; TaTME Registry Collaborative. Transanal Total Mesorectal Excision: International Registry Results of the First 720 Cases. Ann Surg. 2017 Jul;266(1):111-117. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001948. PubMed 27735827 ↗
  • Su H, Yen CF, Wu KY, Han CM, Lee CL. Hysterectomy via transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): feasibility of an innovative approach. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Jun;51(2):217-21. doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2012.04.009. PubMed 22795097 ↗
  • Wang CJ, Huang HY, Huang CY, Su H. Hysterectomy via transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery for nonprolapsed uteri. Surg Endosc. 2015 Jan;29(1):100-7. doi: 10.1007/s00464-014-3639-y. Epub 2014 Oct 1. PubMed 25270610 ↗
  • Yang YS, Kim SY, Hur MH, Oh KY. Natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery-assisted versus single-port laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: a case-matched study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014 Jul-Aug;21(4):624-31. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.01.005. Epub 2014 Jan 21. PubMed 24462594 ↗
  • Lee CL, Wu KY, Su H, Wu PJ, Han CM, Yen CF. Hysterectomy by transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): a series of 137 patients. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014 Sep-Oct;21(5):818-24. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2014.03.011. Epub 2014 Mar 25. PubMed 24681063 ↗
  • Hanstede MM, Burger MJ, Timmermans A, Burger MP. Regional and temporal variation in hysterectomy rates and surgical routes for benign diseases in the Netherlands. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012 Feb;91(2):220-5. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01309.x. PubMed 22043840 ↗
  • David-Montefiore E, Rouzier R, Chapron C, Darai E; Collegiale d'Obstetrique et Gynecologie de Paris-Ile de France. Surgical routes and complications of hysterectomy for benign disorders: a prospective observational study in French university hospitals. Hum Reprod. 2007 Jan;22(1):260-5. doi: 10.1093/humrep/del336. Epub 2006 Sep 1. PubMed 16950826 ↗
  • Kruger PF, Mehta C, Lee P. Predictors of Length of Stay After Vaginal Hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015 Nov-Dec;22(6S):S246. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2015.08.860. Epub 2015 Oct 15. No abstract available. PubMed 27679173 ↗
  • Allam IS, Makled AK, Gomaa IA, El Bishry GM, Bayoumy HA, Ali DF. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy, vaginal hysterectomy and total abdominal hysterectomy using electrosurgical bipolar vessel sealing technique: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015 Jun;291(6):1341-5. doi: 10.1007/s00404-014-3571-3. Epub 2014 Dec 19. PubMed 25524534 ↗
  • Morton M, Cheung VYT, Rosenthal DM. Total laparoscopic versus vaginal hysterectomy: a retrospective comparison. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2008 Nov;30(11):1039-1044. doi: 10.1016/S1701-2163(16)32999-1. PubMed 19126286 ↗
  • Sesti F, Cosi V, Calonzi F, Ruggeri V, Pietropolli A, Di Francesco L, Piccione E. Randomized comparison of total laparoscopic, laparoscopically assisted vaginal and vaginal hysterectomies for myomatous uteri. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014 Sep;290(3):485-91. doi: 10.1007/s00404-014-3228-2. Epub 2014 Apr 8. PubMed 24710800 ↗
  • Liu L, Yi J, Cornella J, Butterfield R, Buras M, Wasson M. Same-Day Discharge after Vaginal Hysterectomy with Pelvic Floor Reconstruction: Pilot Study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020 Feb;27(2):498-503.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2019.04.010. Epub 2019 Apr 10. PubMed 30980994 ↗
  • Wang CJ, Go J, Huang HY, Wu KY, Huang YT, Liu YC, Weng CH. Learning curve analysis of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic hysterectomy. BMC Surg. 2019 Jul 10;19(1):88. doi: 10.1186/s12893-019-0554-0. PubMed 31291917 ↗
  • Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P, Shull BL, Smith AR. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Jul;175(1):10-7. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(96)70243-0. PubMed 8694033 ↗
  • EuroQol Group. EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990 Dec;16(3):199-208. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9. PubMed 10109801 ↗
  • Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, Bonsel G, Badia X. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011 Dec;20(10):1727-36. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x. Epub 2011 Apr 9. PubMed 21479777 ↗
  • M Versteegh M, M Vermeulen K, M A A Evers S, de Wit GA, Prenger R, A Stolk E. Dutch Tariff for the Five-Level Version of EQ-5D. Value Health. 2016 Jun;19(4):343-52. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.01.003. Epub 2016 Mar 30. PubMed 27325326 ↗
  • Jakobsen JC, Gluud C, Wetterslev J, Winkel P. When and how should multiple imputation be used for handling missing data in randomised clinical trials - a practical guide with flowcharts. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Dec 6;17(1):162. doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0442-1. PubMed 29207961 ↗

Study documents

PDFs hosted by the registry, ClinicalTrials.gov.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Aug 14, 2025, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04886791
Lead sponsor
Zuyderland Medisch Centrum
Collaborators
Catharina Ziekenhuis Eindhoven
Responsible party
Ilse Bekkers (Doctor in training to be a gynaecologist, Zuyderland Medisch Centrum) — Principal investigator
First posted
May 14, 2021
Start date
Jul 5, 2021
Primary completion
Aug 1, 2025
Completion
Dec 31, 2025 (estimated)
Last update
Aug 14, 2025

Study contacts

Ilse Bekkers
Contact
il.bekkers@zuyderland.nl
0031640970334
Martine Wassen
Contact
m.wassen@zuyderland.nl
Martine Wassen
principal investigator · Zuyderland Medical Centre

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

Contact study team

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion