Lesion-to-anal-verge distance in rectosigmoid endometriosis on transvaginal sonography vs magnetic resonance imaging: prospective study

OBJECTIVES

To compare transvaginal sonography (TVS) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with intraoperative measurement (IOM) using a rectal probe in the estimation of the location of rectosigmoid endometriotic lesions, i.e. lesion-to-anal-verge distance (LAVD), and to compare two different MRI techniques for measuring LAVD.

METHODS

This was a prospective single-center observational study that included women undergoing surgery for symptomatic rectosigmoid endometriosis by discoid (DR) or segmental (SR) resection from December 2018 to December 2019. TVS and MRI were performed presurgically for each participant to evaluate LAVD, and the measurements on imaging were compared with IOM using a rectal probe. Clinically acceptable difference and limits of agreement (LoA) between TVS and MRI compared with IOM were set at ± 20 mm. Two different measuring methods for MRI, MRI_Center and MRI_Direct , were proposed and evaluated, as there is currently no guideline to describe deep endometriosis on MRI. Bland-Altman plots and LoA were used to assess agreement of TVS and both MRI methods with IOM. Systematic and proportional biases were assessed using paired t-test and Bland-Altman plots.

RESULTS

Seventy-five women were eligible for inclusion. Twenty-eight women were excluded, leaving 47 women for the analysis. Twenty-three DR and 26 SR procedures were performed, with both procedures performed in two women. The Bland-Altman plots showed that there were no systematic differences between TVS or MRI_Center when compared with IOM for all included participants. MRI_Direct systematically underestimated LAVD for lesions located further from the anal verge. TVS, MRI_Center and MRI_Direct had LoA outside the preset clinically acceptable difference when compared with IOM. LAVD was within the clinically acceptable difference from IOM of ± 20 mm in 70% (33/47) of women on TVS, 72% (34/47) of women on MRI_Center and 47% (22/47) of women on MRI_Direct .

CONCLUSIONS

TVS should be the preferred method to estimate the location of a rectosigmoid endometriotic lesion, i.e. LAVD, as it is more available, less expensive and has a similar accuracy to that of MRI. Estimating LAVD can be relevant for planning colorectal surgery for rectosigmoid endometriosis. © 2022 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Transvaginal sonography determines accurately extent of infiltration of rectosigmoid deep endometriosis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the agreement of measurements of the three diameters of rectosigmoid deep endometriosis (DE) lesions between presurgical evaluation using transvaginal sonography (TVS) and postsurgical specimen measurement (PSM).

METHODS

This was a prospective observational multicenter study including symptomatic women undergoing surgical treatment for DE involving the rectosigmoid, by either discoid or segmental resection, from April 2017 to December 2019. TVS was performed presurgically to evaluate lesion size (craniocaudal-midsagittal length, anteroposterior thickness and transverse diameter), in accordance with the International Deep Endometriosis Analysis (IDEA) group consensus statement, and was compared with PSM. The agreement of lesion dimensions between the two methods was assessed by Bland-Altman plots and limits of agreement and additionally by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Pearson's correlation coefficient. Systematic and proportional bias was assessed using the paired t-test.

RESULTS

A total of 207 consecutive women were eligible for inclusion. Forty-one women were excluded, leaving 166 women for final analysis. A total of 123 segmental resections and 46 discoid resections were performed (both procedures were performed in three women). The mean difference between TVS and PSM was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.85-0.95) mm for lesion length measurements, 1.03 (95% CI, 0.98-1.09) mm for lesion thickness measurements and 0.84 (95% CI, 0.79-0.89) mm for transverse diameter measurements. Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated good agreement between the two methods for measurements of lesion length. Furthermore, there was good reliability and correlation between TVS and PSM for lesion length measurements, as demonstrated by an ICC of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.75-0.87) and Pearson's correlation coefficient of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.62-0.80), moderate-to-good reliability and correlation for lesion thickness measurements, with an ICC of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.67-0.82) and Pearson's correlation coefficient of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.51-0.70), and poor-to-moderate reliability and correlation for transverse diameter measurements, with an ICC of 0.58 (95% CI, 0.39-0.71) and Pearson's correlation coefficient of 0.46 (95% CI, 0.33-0.58).

CONCLUSION

Preoperative TVS determines accurately rectosigmoid DE lesion length. TVS can thereby contribute to optimal planning of surgical treatment options in women with rectosigmoid DE. © 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Changes in route of hysterectomy in Norway since introduction of robotic approach

INTRODUCTION

From 2008, several Norwegian Health Trusts have acquired surgical robotic systems, and robotic hysterectomy accounted for 15 % of all hysterectomies performed in Norway in 2018. Robotic assisted hysterectomy is costly, and there is no evidence that the clinical outcome of robotic assisted hysterectomy is superior compared to the outcomes following other minimal invasive hysterectomies such as vaginal and laparoscopic hysterectomies. The objectives of this study were to describe the implementation of robotic hysterectomy and changes in other hysterectomy approaches, such as open abdominal, laparoscopic and vaginal hysterectomy in hospitals with and without robotic systems for hysterectomy.

METHODS

Quantitative study based on hysterectomy data between 2010 to 2018 from the Norwegian Patient Registry.

RESULTS

9 out of 19 health trusts performed robotic assisted hysterectomy during the study period. The rate of abdominal hysterectomies declined during the study period, both in the health trusts with and without available surgical robotic systems. The rate of other minimally invasive hysterectomies also declined in some health trusts after the implementation of robotic assisted hysterectomy.

DISCUSSION

Robotic hysterectomy has been implemented and is increasing in Norway without a thorough evaluation of the effect on patient safety and possible economic consequences. According to our findings, it appears that the implementation of robotic hysterectomy has not had a significant impact on the use of open abdominal hysterectomy. Although associated with increased costs and a lack of evidence of improved clinical outcomes for women, robotic hysterectomy has furthermore to some extent replaced other minimal invasive hysterectomies.

Transvaginal sonography accurately measures lesion-to-anal-verge distance in women with deep endometriosis of the rectosigmoid

OBJECTIVES

First, to investigate the accuracy of transvaginal sonography (TVS) for presurgical evaluation of the distance between the most caudal part of the endometriotic lesion and the anal verge (lesion-to-anal-verge distance (LAVD)) in women with rectosigmoid deep endometriosis (DE), compared with intraoperative measurement (IOM). Second, to assess the agreement between anastomosis height and LAVD measured using TVS.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational multicenter study of symptomatic women who were scheduled for surgical treatment of rectosigmoid DE, by either discoid or segmental resection, between April 2017 and September 2019. Presurgical TVS was performed to evaluate the LAVD in two ways, depending on the level of the lesion. Method 1: for lesions at the level of the rectovaginal septum (RVS), the caudal part of the lesion was identified on TVS and an index finger was placed on the TVS probe at the level of the anal verge. The probe was withdrawn and the distance from the tip of the TVS probe down to the index finger was measured using a ruler, representing the LAVD. Method 2: for lesions above the RVS, the distance between the caudal part of the lesion and the lower lip of the posterior cervix was measured in a frozen image (LAVD-1), and the distance between the lower lip of the posterior cervix and the anal verge (LAVD-2) was measured using Method 1. These two measurements (LAVD-1 and LAVD-2) were added together and the result represented the total LAVD. During surgery, a rectal probe was used to perform IOM of LAVD, which was considered as the gold standard test. Agreement between LAVD measured using TVS and the IOM was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for absolute agreement and Spearman's correlation coefficient were also calculated. Systematic and proportional bias were tested for significance using the paired t-test. Similar analysis was performed to assess agreement between LAVD measured using TVS and anastomosis height.

RESULTS

A total of 147 consecutive women were considered eligible for inclusion. Fourteen women were excluded initially. Thirty-four discoid resections and 102 segmental resections were performed; both procedures were performed in three women. Two more women were excluded from the final analysis because the measurements represented extreme outliers. The mean LAVD measured using TVS was 114.8 ± 36.5 mm and the mean IOM was 116.9 ± 42.3 mm. There was no statistically significant difference between LAVD measured using TVS and IOM (mean difference, -2.12 mm (95% CI, -6.33 to 2.05 mm); P = 0.32). Bland-Altman analysis showed that there was good agreement between the two methods. The ICC was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.74-0.86) and Spearman's correlation coefficient was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.56-0.77). The mean difference between LAVD measured using TVS and anastomosis height was statistically, but not clinically, significant (mean difference, 10.25 mm (95% CI, 5.94-14.32 mm); P = 0.0005), and the ICC was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.66-0.85).

CONCLUSIONS

There is good agreement between the LAVD measured using TVS and the IOM in women with rectosigmoid DE. As a consequence, TVS could be useful for estimation of the height of the final surgical anastomosis in women undergoing full-thickness resection for rectosigmoid DE. This is of pivotal importance in reducing the risk of complications and need for a temporary stoma, and could improve patient counseling. © 2020 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Development and validation of a curriculum for laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate a three-step curriculum for laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSH) designed for a busy clinical setting.

NETHODS

Single-centre, prospective, cohort study. Twelve eligible gynaecological trainees were included (group 1). The theoretical part (step 1) was a validated multiple-choice test. The practical part (step 2) consisted of five tasks on a virtual reality simulator. The participants had to reach a pre-defined proficiency level before advancing to performing a LSH (step 3). The validation of the curriculum was based on the surgical performance. The surgical procedure was recorded and assessed by two experts using Global Operative Assessment of Laparoscopic Skills (GOALS) and Competence Assessment Tool - Laparoscopic Supracervical Hysterectomy (CAT-LSH). The scores were compared with scores from gynaecological trainees who performed their first LSH without virtual reality simulator training (group 2).

RESULTS

Ten trainees completed the curriculum and performed a LSH that was recorded and evaluated. Mean duration of the training period (step 1 and 2) was 57 days (SD 26.0), and mean training time spent on the simulator to reach the pre-set proficiency level was 173 min (SD 49). The mean GOALS score was 18.5 (SD 5.8) in group 1 and 13.6 (SD 3.3) in group 2, p=0.027. The mean CAT-LSH score of the performance of the hysterectomy was 42.1 (SD 6.9) in group 1 and 34.8 (SD 4.3) in group 2, p= 0.009.

CONCLUSIONS

Trainees who completed the curriculum appeared to have a higher performance score compared with trainees who did not perform structured training.

Development and validation of a general and easy assessable scoring system for laparoscopic skills using a virtual reality simulator

Objectives

To develop and validate a scoring system for laparoscopic skills for five specific tasks on a virtual reality simulator.

Study design

A longitudinal, experimental, non-randomised study including 30 gynecologists and gynecological trainees at three hospitals. The participants were categorized as inexperienced (Group 1), moderately experienced (Group 2), and experienced (Group 3).

The study participants performed ten repetitions of three basic skill tasks, a salpingectomy and a laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy on a virtual reality simulator. Assessment of skills was based on time, error parameters and economy of movements measured by the simulator. We used the results (mean and SD for each parameter in all tasks) of the four last repetitions performed by the experienced gynecologists as the basic for the scoring system. Performance equal to, and higher than, this mean score gave 2 points. A decrease of 1 SD from the mean gave 1 point. Every score below gave 0 points. The mean score for the inexperienced, moderately experienced and experienced study participants was compared.

Results

The mean scores in Task 1 were 3.4 (SD 0.6) in Group 1, 3.4 (SD 0.6) in Group 2 and 5.1 (SD 1.1) in Group 3, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in score between Group 1 and 3 (p = 0.01), and group 2 and 3 (p = 0.01). In Task 2 no statistical significant differences were found. In Task 3, the total mean scores were 1.7 (SD 0.7) in Group 1, 1.9 (SD 0.9) in Group 2 and 2.8 (SD 0.5) in Group 3, respectively. The difference in score between study groups was statistically significant when comparing Group 1 and Group 3 (p < 0.01) and Group 2 and Group 3 (p = 0.02).

In Task 4, the difference in used time between group 1 and 3 was statistically significant (p = 0.03). In task 5 there was a significant difference in performance score between group 1 and 3 (p = 0.01).

Conclusions

There was significant difference in scores between the experienced and the inexperienced gynecologist in four out of five tasks.

The scoring system is easy assessable and can be used for summative and formative feedback in proficiency-based assessment.

Observation of excited Λ(b)(0) baryons

Using pp collision data corresponding to 1.0 fb(-1) integrated luminosity collected by the LHCb detector, two narrow states are observed in the Λ(b)(0)π(+)π(-) spectrum with masses 5911.97±0.12(stat)±0.02(syst)±0.66(Λ(b)(0) mass) MeV/c(2) and 5919.77±0.08(stat)±0.02(syst)±0.66(Λ(b)(0) mass) MeV/c(2). The significances of the observations are 5.2 and 10.2 standard deviations, respectively. These states are interpreted as the orbitally excited Λ(b)(0) baryons, Λ(b)(*0)(5912) and Λ(b)(*0)(5920).

Measurement of the B¯(s)(0) effective lifetime in the J/ψf0(980) final state

The effective lifetime of the B ¯(s)(0) meson in the decay mode B¯(s)(0)→J/ψf(0)(980) is measured using 1.0 fb(-1) of data collected in pp collisions at √s=7 TeV with the LHCb detector. The result is 1.700±0.040±0.026 ps, where the first uncertainty is statistical and the second systematic. As the final state is CP-odd, and CP violation in this mode is measured to be small, the lifetime measurement can be translated into a measurement of the decay width of the heavy B¯(s)(0) mass eigenstate, Γ(H)=0.588±0.014±0.009 ps(-1).

Observation of B0→D¯(0)K(+)K(-) and evidence for B(s)(0)→D¯(0)K(+)K(-)

The first observation of the decay B0→D¯(0)K(+)K(-) is reported from an analysis of 0.62 fb(-1) of pp collision data collected with the LHCb detector. Its branching fraction is measured relative to that of the topologically similar decay B(0)→D ¯(0)π(+)π(-) to be (B(B(0)→D¯(0)K(+)K(-))/B(B(0)→D¯(0)π(+)π(-))=0.056±0.011±0.007,where the first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic. The significance of the signal is 5.8σ. Evidence, with 3.8σ significance, for B(s)(0)→D¯(0)K(+)K(-) decays is also presented. The relative branching fraction is measured to be B(B(s)(0)→D¯(0)K(+)K(-))/B(B(0)→D¯(0)K(+)K(-))=0.90±0.27±0.20. These channels are of interest to study the mechanisms behind hadronic B decays, and open new possibilities for CP violation analyses with larger data sets.

Measurement of relative branching fractions of B decays to ψ(2S) and J/ψ mesons

The relative rates of B-meson decays into J/ψ and ψ(2S) mesons are measured for the three decay modes in pp collisions recorded with the LHCb detector. The ratios of branching fractions ([Formula: see text]) are measured to be [Formula: see text] where the third uncertainty is from the ratio of the ψ(2S) and J/ψ branching fractions to μ⁺μ^-.

Measurement of ψ(2S) meson production in pp collisions at [Formula: see text]

The differential cross-section for the inclusive production of ψ(2S) mesons in pp collisions at [Formula: see text] has been measured with the LHCb detector. The data sample corresponds to an integrated luminosity of 36 pb^-1. The ψ(2S) mesons are reconstructed in the decay channels ψ(2S)→μ⁺μ^- and ψ(2S)→J/ψπ⁺π^-, with the J/ψ meson decaying into two muons. Results are presented both for promptly produced ψ(2S) mesons and for those originating from b-hadron decays. In the kinematic range p_T(ψ(2S))≤16 GeV/c and 2<y(ψ(2S))≤4.5 we measure [Formula: see text] where the last uncertainty on the prompt cross-section is due to the unknown ψ(2S) polarization. Recent QCD calculations are found to be in good agreement with our measurements. Combining the present result with the LHCb J/ψ measurements we determine the inclusive branching fraction [Formula: see text] where the last uncertainty is due to the [Formula: see text], [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] branching fraction uncertainties.

First observation of the decay B(c)+ → J/ψπ(+) π- π+

The decay B(c)(+) → J/ψπ(+) π(-) π(+) is observed for the first time, using 0.8 fb(-1) of pp collisions at sqrt[s] = 7 TeV collected by the LHCb experiment. The ratio of branching fractions B(B(c)(+) → J/ψπ(+) π(-) π(+))/B(B(c)(+)→J/ψπ^{+}) is measured to be 2.41 ± 0.30 ± 0.33, where the first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic. The result is in agreement with theoretical predictions.

Determination of the sign of the decay width difference in the B(s)(0) system

The interference between the K+ K- S-wave and P-wave amplitudes in B(s)(0) → J/ψK+ K- decays with the K+ K- pairs in the region around the ϕ(1020) resonance is used to determine the variation of the difference of the strong phase between these amplitudes as a function of K+ K- invariant mass. Combined with the results from our CP asymmetry measurement in B(s)(0) → J/ψϕ decays, we conclude that the B(s)(0) mass eigenstate that is almost CP = +1 is lighter and decays faster than the mass eigenstate that is almost CP = -1. This determines the sign of the decay width difference ΔΓ(s) ≡ Γ(L) - Γ(H) to be positive. Our result also resolves the ambiguity in the past measurements of the CP violating phase ϕ(s) to be close to zero rather than π. These conclusions are in agreement with the standard model expectations.

Strong constraints on the rare decays B(s)(0) → μ+ μ- and B0 → μ+ μ-

A search for B(s)(0) → μ+ μ- and B0 → μ+ μ decays is performed using 1.0  fb(-1) of pp collision data collected at sqrt[s] = 7  TeV with the LHCb experiment at the Large Hadron Collider. For both decays, the number of observed events is consistent with expectation from background and standard model signal predictions. Upper limits on the branching fractions are determined to be B(B(s)(0) → μ+ μ-) < 4.5(3.8)×10(-9) and B(B0 → μ+ μ-) < 1.0(0.81)×10(-9) at 95% (90%) confidence level.

Opposite-side flavour tagging of B mesons at the LHCb experiment

The calibration and performance of the opposite-side flavour tagging algorithms used for the measurements of time-dependent asymmetries at the LHCb experiment are described. The algorithms have been developed using simulated events and optimized and calibrated with B⁺→J/ψK⁺, B⁰→J/ψK^∗0 and B⁰→D^∗-μ⁺ν_μ decay modes with 0.37 fb^-1 of data collected in pp collisions at [Formula: see text] during the 2011 physics run. The opposite-side tagging power is determined in the B⁺→J/ψK⁺ channel to be (2.10±0.08±0.24) %, where the first uncertainty is statistical and the second is systematic.

Measurement of production in collisions at [Formula: see text]

The production of ϒ(1S), ϒ(2S) and ϒ(3S) mesons in proton-proton collisions at the centre-of-mass energy of [Formula: see text] is studied with the LHCb detector. The analysis is based on a data sample of 25 pb-1 collected at the Large Hadron Collider. The ϒ mesons are reconstructed in the decay mode ϒ→μ+μ- and the signal yields are extracted from a fit to the μ+μ- invariant mass distributions. The differential production cross-sections times dimuon branching fractions are measured as a function of the ϒ transverse momentum pT and rapidity y, over the range pT <15 GeV/c and 2.0 Collapse

Key Words Collapse

MESH Headings Collapse

Grants Collapse

Affiliation(s)

The LHCb Collaboration />CERN, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland
R. Aaij />Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
C. Abellan Beteta />Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
B. Adeva />Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
M. Adinolfi />H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
C. Adrover />CPPM, Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, France
A. Affolder />Oliver Lodge Laboratory, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
Z. Ajaltouni />Clermont Université, Université Blaise Pascal, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France
J. Albrecht />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
F. Alessio />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
M. Alexander />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
G. Alkhazov />Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute (PNPI), Gatchina, Russia
P. Alvarez Cartelle />Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
A. A. Alves />Sezione INFN di Roma La Sapienza, Roma, Italy
S. Amato />Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Y. Amhis />Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
J. Anderson />Physik-Institut, Universität Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
R. B. Appleby />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
O. Aquines Gutierrez />Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK), Heidelberg, Germany
F. Archilli />Laboratori Nazionali dell’INFN di Frascati, Frascati, Italy />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
L. Arrabito />CC-IN2P3, CNRS/IN2P3, Lyon-Villeurbanne, France
A. Artamonov />Institute for High Energy Physics (IHEP), Protvino, Russia
M. Artuso />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland />Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY United States
E. Aslanides />CPPM, Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, France
G. Auriemma />Sezione INFN di Roma La Sapienza, Roma, Italy
S. Bachmann />Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
J. J. Back />Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
D. S. Bailey />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
V. Balagura />Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics (ITEP), Moscow, Russia />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
W. Baldini />Sezione INFN di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
R. J. Barlow />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
C. Barschel />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
S. Barsuk />LAL, Université Paris-Sud, CNRS/IN2P3, Orsay, France
W. Barter />Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
A. Bates />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
C. Bauer />Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK), Heidelberg, Germany
Th. Bauer />Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
A. Bay />Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
I. Bediaga />Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas (CBPF), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
S. Belogurov />Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics (ITEP), Moscow, Russia
K. Belous />Institute for High Energy Physics (IHEP), Protvino, Russia
I. Belyaev />Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics (ITEP), Moscow, Russia
E. Ben-Haim />LPNHE, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Université Paris Diderot, CNRS/IN2P3, Paris, France
M. Benayoun />LPNHE, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Université Paris Diderot, CNRS/IN2P3, Paris, France
G. Bencivenni />Laboratori Nazionali dell’INFN di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
S. Benson />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
J. Benton />H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
R. Bernet />Physik-Institut, Universität Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
M.-O. Bettler />Sezione INFN di Firenze, Firenze, Italy
M. van Beuzekom />Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
A. Bien />Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
S. Bifani />School of Physics, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
T. Bird />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
A. Bizzeti />Sezione INFN di Firenze, Firenze, Italy
P. M. Bjørnstad />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
T. Blake />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
F. Blanc />Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
C. Blanks />Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
J. Blouw />Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
S. Blusk />Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY United States
A. Bobrov />Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics (SB RAS) and Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, Russia
V. Bocci />Sezione INFN di Roma La Sapienza, Roma, Italy
A. Bondar />Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics (SB RAS) and Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, Russia
N. Bondar />Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute (PNPI), Gatchina, Russia
W. Bonivento />Sezione INFN di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
S. Borghi />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
A. Borgia />Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY United States
T. J. V. Bowcock />Oliver Lodge Laboratory, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
C. Bozzi />Sezione INFN di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
T. Brambach />Fakultät Physik, Technische Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany
J. van den Brand />Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
J. Bressieux />Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
D. Brett />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
M. Britsch />Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK), Heidelberg, Germany
T. Britton />Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY United States
N. H. Brook />H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
H. Brown />Oliver Lodge Laboratory, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
K. de Bruyn />Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
A. Büchler-Germann />Physik-Institut, Universität Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
I. Burducea />Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest-Magurele, Romania
A. Bursche />Physik-Institut, Universität Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
J. Buytaert />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
S. Cadeddu />Sezione INFN di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
O. Callot />LAL, Université Paris-Sud, CNRS/IN2P3, Orsay, France
M. Calvi />Sezione INFN di Milano Bicocca, Milano, Italy
M. Calvo Gomez />Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
A. Camboni />Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
P. Campana />Laboratori Nazionali dell’INFN di Frascati, Frascati, Italy />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
A. Carbone />Sezione INFN di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
G. Carboni />Sezione INFN di Roma Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy
R. Cardinale />Sezione INFN di Genova, Genova, Italy />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
A. Cardini />Sezione INFN di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
L. Carson />Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
K. Carvalho Akiba />Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
G. Casse />Oliver Lodge Laboratory, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
M. Cattaneo />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
Ch. Cauet />Fakultät Physik, Technische Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany
M. Charles />Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
Ph. Charpentier />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
N. Chiapolini />Physik-Institut, Universität Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
K. Ciba />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
X. Cid Vidal />Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
G. Ciezarek />Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
P. E. L. Clarke />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
M. Clemencic />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
H. V. Cliff />Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
J. Closier />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
C. Coca />Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest-Magurele, Romania
V. Coco />Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
J. Cogan />CPPM, Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, France
P. Collins />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
A. Comerma-Montells />Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
F. Constantin />Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest-Magurele, Romania
A. Contu />Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
A. Cook />H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
M. Coombes />H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
G. Corti />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
B. Couturier />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
G. A. Cowan />Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
R. Currie />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
C. D’Ambrosio />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
P. David />LPNHE, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Université Paris Diderot, CNRS/IN2P3, Paris, France
P. N. Y. David />Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
I. De Bonis />LAPP, Université de Savoie, CNRS/IN2P3, Annecy-Le-Vieux, France
S. De Capua />Sezione INFN di Roma Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy
M. De Cian />Physik-Institut, Universität Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
F. De Lorenzi />School of Physics, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
J. M. De Miranda />Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas (CBPF), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
L. De Paula />Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
P. De Simone />Laboratori Nazionali dell’INFN di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
D. Decamp />LAPP, Université de Savoie, CNRS/IN2P3, Annecy-Le-Vieux, France
M. Deckenhoff />Fakultät Physik, Technische Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany
H. Degaudenzi />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland />Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
L. Del Buono />LPNHE, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Université Paris Diderot, CNRS/IN2P3, Paris, France
C. Deplano />Sezione INFN di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
D. Derkach />Sezione INFN di Bologna, Bologna, Italy />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
O. Deschamps />Clermont Université, Université Blaise Pascal, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France
F. Dettori />Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
J. Dickens />Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
H. Dijkstra />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
P. Diniz Batista />Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas (CBPF), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
F. Domingo Bonal />Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
S. Donleavy />Oliver Lodge Laboratory, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
F. Dordei />Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
A. Dosil Suárez />Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
D. Dossett />Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
A. Dovbnya />NSC Kharkiv Institute of Physics and Technology (NSC KIPT), Kharkiv, Ukraine
F. Dupertuis />Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
R. Dzhelyadin />Institute for High Energy Physics (IHEP), Protvino, Russia
A. Dziurda />Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland
S. Easo />STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
U. Egede />Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
V. Egorychev />Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics (ITEP), Moscow, Russia
S. Eidelman />Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics (SB RAS) and Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, Russia
D. van Eijk />Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
F. Eisele />Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
S. Eisenhardt />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
R. Ekelhof />Fakultät Physik, Technische Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany
L. Eklund />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
Ch. Elsasser />Physik-Institut, Universität Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
D. Elsby />University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
D. Esperante Pereira />Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
A. Falabella />Sezione INFN di Bologna, Bologna, Italy />Sezione INFN di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
E. Fanchini />Sezione INFN di Milano Bicocca, Milano, Italy
C. Färber />Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
G. Fardell />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
C. Farinelli />Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
S. Farry />School of Physics, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
V. Fave />Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
V. Fernandez Albor />Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
M. Ferro-Luzzi />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
S. Filippov />Institute for Nuclear Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences (INR RAN), Moscow, Russia
C. Fitzpatrick />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
M. Fontana />Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK), Heidelberg, Germany
F. Fontanelli />Sezione INFN di Genova, Genova, Italy
R. Forty />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
O. Francisco />Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
M. Frank />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
C. Frei />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
M. Frosini />Sezione INFN di Firenze, Firenze, Italy
S. Furcas />Sezione INFN di Milano Bicocca, Milano, Italy
A. Gallas Torreira />Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
D. Galli />Sezione INFN di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
M. Gandelman />Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
P. Gandini />Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
Y. Gao />Center for High Energy Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
J-C. Garnier />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
J. Garofoli />Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY United States
J. Garra Tico />Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
L. Garrido />Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
D. Gascon />Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
C. Gaspar />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
R. Gauld />Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
N. Gauvin />Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
M. Gersabeck />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
T. Gershon />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland />Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
Ph. Ghez />LAPP, Université de Savoie, CNRS/IN2P3, Annecy-Le-Vieux, France
V. Gibson />Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
V. V. Gligorov />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
C. Göbel />Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
D. Golubkov />Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics (ITEP), Moscow, Russia
A. Golutvin />Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics (ITEP), Moscow, Russia />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland />Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
A. Gomes />Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
H. Gordon />Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
M. Grabalosa Gándara />Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
R. Graciani Diaz />Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
L. A. Granado Cardoso />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
E. Graugés />Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
G. Graziani />Sezione INFN di Firenze, Firenze, Italy
A. Grecu />Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest-Magurele, Romania
E. Greening />Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
S. Gregson />Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
B. Gui />Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY United States
E. Gushchin />Institute for Nuclear Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences (INR RAN), Moscow, Russia
Yu. Guz />Institute for High Energy Physics (IHEP), Protvino, Russia
T. Gys />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
C. Hadjivasiliou />Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY United States
G. Haefeli />Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
C. Haen />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
S. C. Haines />Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
T. Hampson />H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
S. Hansmann-Menzemer />Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
R. Harji />Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
N. Harnew />Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
J. Harrison />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
P. F. Harrison />Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
T. Hartmann />Physikalisches Institut, Universität Rostock, Rostock, Germany
J. He />LAL, Université Paris-Sud, CNRS/IN2P3, Orsay, France
V. Heijne />Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
K. Hennessy />Oliver Lodge Laboratory, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
P. Henrard />Clermont Université, Université Blaise Pascal, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France
J. A. Hernando Morata />Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
E. van Herwijnen />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
E. Hicks />Oliver Lodge Laboratory, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
K. Holubyev />Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
P. Hopchev />LAPP, Université de Savoie, CNRS/IN2P3, Annecy-Le-Vieux, France
W. Hulsbergen />Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
P. Hunt />Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
T. Huse />Oliver Lodge Laboratory, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
R. S. Huston />School of Physics, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
D. Hutchcroft />Oliver Lodge Laboratory, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
D. Hynds />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
V. Iakovenko />Institute for Nuclear Research of the National Academy of Sciences (KINR), Kyiv, Ukraine
P. Ilten />School of Physics, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
J. Imong />H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
R. Jacobsson />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
A. Jaeger />Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
M. Jahjah Hussein />Clermont Université, Université Blaise Pascal, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France
E. Jans />Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
F. Jansen />Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
P. Jaton />Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
B. Jean-Marie />LAL, Université Paris-Sud, CNRS/IN2P3, Orsay, France
F. Jing />Center for High Energy Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
M. John />Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
D. Johnson />Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
C. R. Jones />Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
B. Jost />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
M. Kaballo />Fakultät Physik, Technische Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany
S. Kandybei />NSC Kharkiv Institute of Physics and Technology (NSC KIPT), Kharkiv, Ukraine
M. Karacson />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
T. M. Karbach />Fakultät Physik, Technische Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany
J. Keaveney />School of Physics, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
I. R. Kenyon />University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
U. Kerzel />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
T. Ketel />Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
A. Keune />Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
B. Khanji />CPPM, Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, France
Y. M. Kim />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
M. Knecht />Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
R. F. Koopman />Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
P. Koppenburg />Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
M. Korolev />Institute of Nuclear Physics, Moscow State University (SINP MSU), Moscow, Russia
A. Kozlinskiy />Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
L. Kravchuk />Institute for Nuclear Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences (INR RAN), Moscow, Russia
K. Kreplin />Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
M. Kreps />Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
G. Krocker />Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
P. Krokovny />Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
F. Kruse />Fakultät Physik, Technische Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany
K. Kruzelecki />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
M. Kucharczyk />Sezione INFN di Milano Bicocca, Milano, Italy />Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
T. Kvaratskheliya />Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics (ITEP), Moscow, Russia />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
V. N. La Thi />Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
D. Lacarrere />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
G. Lafferty />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
A. Lai />Sezione INFN di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
D. Lambert />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
R. W. Lambert />Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
E. Lanciotti />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
G. Lanfranchi />Laboratori Nazionali dell’INFN di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
C. Langenbruch />Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
T. Latham />Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
C. Lazzeroni />University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
R. Le Gac />CPPM, Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, France
J. van Leerdam />Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
J.-P. Lees />LAPP, Université de Savoie, CNRS/IN2P3, Annecy-Le-Vieux, France
R. Lefèvre />Clermont Université, Université Blaise Pascal, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France
A. Leflat />Institute of Nuclear Physics, Moscow State University (SINP MSU), Moscow, Russia />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
J. Lefrançois />LAL, Université Paris-Sud, CNRS/IN2P3, Orsay, France
O. Leroy />CPPM, Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, France
T. Lesiak />Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland
L. Li />Center for High Energy Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
L. Li Gioi />Clermont Université, Université Blaise Pascal, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France
M. Lieng />Fakultät Physik, Technische Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany
M. Liles />Oliver Lodge Laboratory, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
R. Lindner />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
C. Linn />Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
B. Liu />Center for High Energy Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
G. Liu />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
J. von Loeben />Sezione INFN di Milano Bicocca, Milano, Italy
J. H. Lopes />Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
E. Lopez Asamar />Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
N. Lopez-March />Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
H. Lu />Center for High Energy Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
J. Luisier />Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
A. Mac Raighne />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
F. Machefert />LAL, Université Paris-Sud, CNRS/IN2P3, Orsay, France
I. V. Machikhiliyan />LAPP, Université de Savoie, CNRS/IN2P3, Annecy-Le-Vieux, France />Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics (ITEP), Moscow, Russia
F. Maciuc />Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK), Heidelberg, Germany
O. Maev />Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute (PNPI), Gatchina, Russia />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
J. Magnin />Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas (CBPF), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
S. Malde />Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
R. M. D. Mamunur />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
G. Manca />Sezione INFN di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
G. Mancinelli />CPPM, Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, France
N. Mangiafave />Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
U. Marconi />Sezione INFN di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
R. Märki />Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
J. Marks />Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
G. Martellotti />Sezione INFN di Roma La Sapienza, Roma, Italy
A. Martens />LPNHE, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Université Paris Diderot, CNRS/IN2P3, Paris, France
L. Martin />Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
A. Martín Sánchez />LAL, Université Paris-Sud, CNRS/IN2P3, Orsay, France
D. Martinez Santos />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
A. Massafferri />Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas (CBPF), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Z. Mathe />School of Physics, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
C. Matteuzzi />Sezione INFN di Milano Bicocca, Milano, Italy
M. Matveev />Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute (PNPI), Gatchina, Russia
E. Maurice />CPPM, Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, France
B. Maynard />Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY United States
A. Mazurov />Sezione INFN di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy />Institute for Nuclear Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences (INR RAN), Moscow, Russia />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
G. McGregor />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
R. McNulty />School of Physics, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
M. Meissner />Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
M. Merk />Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
J. Merkel />Fakultät Physik, Technische Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany
R. Messi />Sezione INFN di Roma Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy
S. Miglioranzi />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
D. A. Milanes />Sezione INFN di Bari, Bari, Italy
M.-N. Minard />LAPP, Université de Savoie, CNRS/IN2P3, Annecy-Le-Vieux, France
J. Molina Rodriguez />Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
S. Monteil />Clermont Université, Université Blaise Pascal, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France
D. Moran />School of Physics, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
P. Morawski />Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland
R. Mountain />Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY United States
I. Mous />Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
F. Muheim />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
K. Müller />Physik-Institut, Universität Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
R. Muresan />Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest-Magurele, Romania
B. Muryn />AGH University of Science and Technology, Kraków, Poland
B. Muster />Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
M. Musy />Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
J. Mylroie-Smith />Oliver Lodge Laboratory, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
P. Naik />H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
T. Nakada />Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
R. Nandakumar />STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
I. Nasteva />Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas (CBPF), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
M. Nedos />Fakultät Physik, Technische Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany
M. Needham />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
N. Neufeld />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
A. D. Nguyen />Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
C. Nguyen-Mau />Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
M. Nicol />LAL, Université Paris-Sud, CNRS/IN2P3, Orsay, France
V. Niess />Clermont Université, Université Blaise Pascal, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France
N. Nikitin />Institute of Nuclear Physics, Moscow State University (SINP MSU), Moscow, Russia
A. Nomerotski />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland />Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
A. Novoselov />Institute for High Energy Physics (IHEP), Protvino, Russia
A. Oblakowska-Mucha />AGH University of Science and Technology, Kraków, Poland
V. Obraztsov />Institute for High Energy Physics (IHEP), Protvino, Russia
S. Oggero />Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
S. Ogilvy />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
O. Okhrimenko />Institute for Nuclear Research of the National Academy of Sciences (KINR), Kyiv, Ukraine
R. Oldeman />Sezione INFN di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
M. Orlandea />Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest-Magurele, Romania
J. M. Otalora Goicochea />Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
P. Owen />Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
K. Pal />Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY United States
J. Palacios />Physik-Institut, Universität Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
A. Palano />Sezione INFN di Bari, Bari, Italy
M. Palutan />Laboratori Nazionali dell’INFN di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
J. Panman />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
A. Papanestis />STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
M. Pappagallo />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
C. Parkes />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
C. J. Parkinson />Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
G. Passaleva />Sezione INFN di Firenze, Firenze, Italy
G. D. Patel />Oliver Lodge Laboratory, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
M. Patel />Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
S. K. Paterson />Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
G. N. Patrick />STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
C. Patrignani />Sezione INFN di Genova, Genova, Italy
C. Pavel-Nicorescu />Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest-Magurele, Romania
A. Pazos Alvarez />Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
A. Pellegrino />Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
G. Penso />Sezione INFN di Roma La Sapienza, Roma, Italy
M. Pepe Altarelli />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
S. Perazzini />Sezione INFN di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
D. L. Perego />Sezione INFN di Milano Bicocca, Milano, Italy
E. Perez Trigo />Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
A. Pérez-Calero Yzquierdo />Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
P. Perret />Clermont Université, Université Blaise Pascal, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France
M. Perrin-Terrin />CPPM, Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, France
G. Pessina />Sezione INFN di Milano Bicocca, Milano, Italy
A. Petrella />Sezione INFN di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
A. Petrolini />Sezione INFN di Genova, Genova, Italy
A. Phan />Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY United States
E. Picatoste Olloqui />Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
B. Pie Valls />Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
B. Pietrzyk />LAPP, Université de Savoie, CNRS/IN2P3, Annecy-Le-Vieux, France
T. Pilař />Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
D. Pinci />Sezione INFN di Roma La Sapienza, Roma, Italy
R. Plackett />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
S. Playfer />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
M. Plo Casasus />Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
G. Polok />Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland
A. Poluektov />Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics (SB RAS) and Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, Russia />Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
E. Polycarpo />Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
D. Popov />Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK), Heidelberg, Germany
B. Popovici />Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest-Magurele, Romania
C. Potterat />Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
A. Powell />Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
J. Prisciandaro />Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
V. Pugatch />Institute for Nuclear Research of the National Academy of Sciences (KINR), Kyiv, Ukraine
A. Puig Navarro />Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
W. Qian />Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY United States
J. H. Rademacker />H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
B. Rakotomiaramanana />Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
M. S. Rangel />Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
I. Raniuk />NSC Kharkiv Institute of Physics and Technology (NSC KIPT), Kharkiv, Ukraine
G. Raven />Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
S. Redford />Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
M. M. Reid />Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
A. C. dos Reis />Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas (CBPF), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
S. Ricciardi />STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
A. Richards />Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
K. Rinnert />Oliver Lodge Laboratory, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
D. A. Roa Romero />Clermont Université, Université Blaise Pascal, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France
P. Robbe />LAL, Université Paris-Sud, CNRS/IN2P3, Orsay, France
E. Rodrigues />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
F. Rodrigues />Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
P. Rodriguez Perez />Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
G. J. Rogers />Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
S. Roiser />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
V. Romanovsky />Institute for High Energy Physics (IHEP), Protvino, Russia
M. Rosello />Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
J. Rouvinet />Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
T. Ruf />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
H. Ruiz />Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
G. Sabatino />Sezione INFN di Roma Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy
J. J. Saborido Silva />Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
N. Sagidova />Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute (PNPI), Gatchina, Russia
P. Sail />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
B. Saitta />Sezione INFN di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
C. Salzmann />Physik-Institut, Universität Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
M. Sannino />Sezione INFN di Genova, Genova, Italy
R. Santacesaria />Sezione INFN di Roma La Sapienza, Roma, Italy
C. Santamarina Rios />Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
R. Santinelli />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
E. Santovetti />Sezione INFN di Roma Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy
M. Sapunov />CPPM, Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, France
A. Sarti />Laboratori Nazionali dell’INFN di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
C. Satriano />Sezione INFN di Roma La Sapienza, Roma, Italy
A. Satta />Sezione INFN di Roma Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy
M. Savrie />Sezione INFN di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
D. Savrina />Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics (ITEP), Moscow, Russia
P. Schaack />Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
M. Schiller />Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
S. Schleich />Fakultät Physik, Technische Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany
M. Schlupp />Fakultät Physik, Technische Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany
M. Schmelling />Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK), Heidelberg, Germany
B. Schmidt />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
O. Schneider />Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
A. Schopper />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
M.-H. Schune />LAL, Université Paris-Sud, CNRS/IN2P3, Orsay, France
R. Schwemmer />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
B. Sciascia />Laboratori Nazionali dell’INFN di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
A. Sciubba />Laboratori Nazionali dell’INFN di Frascati, Frascati, Italy
M. Seco />Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
A. Semennikov />Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics (ITEP), Moscow, Russia
K. Senderowska />AGH University of Science and Technology, Kraków, Poland
I. Sepp />Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
N. Serra />Physik-Institut, Universität Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
J. Serrano />CPPM, Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, France
P. Seyfert />Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
M. Shapkin />Institute for High Energy Physics (IHEP), Protvino, Russia
I. Shapoval />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland />NSC Kharkiv Institute of Physics and Technology (NSC KIPT), Kharkiv, Ukraine
P. Shatalov />Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics (ITEP), Moscow, Russia
Y. Shcheglov />Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute (PNPI), Gatchina, Russia
T. Shears />Oliver Lodge Laboratory, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
L. Shekhtman />Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics (SB RAS) and Novosibirsk State University, Novosibirsk, Russia
O. Shevchenko />NSC Kharkiv Institute of Physics and Technology (NSC KIPT), Kharkiv, Ukraine
V. Shevchenko />Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics (ITEP), Moscow, Russia
A. Shires />Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
R. Silva Coutinho />Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
T. Skwarnicki />Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY United States
N. A. Smith />Oliver Lodge Laboratory, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
E. Smith />STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom />Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
K. Sobczak />Clermont Université, Université Blaise Pascal, CNRS/IN2P3, LPC, Clermont-Ferrand, France
F. J. P. Soler />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
A. Solomin />H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
F. Soomro />Laboratori Nazionali dell’INFN di Frascati, Frascati, Italy />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
B. Souza De Paula />Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
B. Spaan />Fakultät Physik, Technische Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany
A. Sparkes />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
P. Spradlin />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
F. Stagni />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
S. Stahl />Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
O. Steinkamp />Physik-Institut, Universität Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
S. Stoica />Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest-Magurele, Romania
S. Stone />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland />Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY United States
B. Storaci />Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
M. Straticiuc />Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest-Magurele, Romania
U. Straumann />Physik-Institut, Universität Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
V. K. Subbiah />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
S. Swientek />Fakultät Physik, Technische Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany
M. Szczekowski />Soltan Institute for Nuclear Studies, Warsaw, Poland
P. Szczypka />Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
T. Szumlak />AGH University of Science and Technology, Kraków, Poland
S. T’Jampens />LAPP, Université de Savoie, CNRS/IN2P3, Annecy-Le-Vieux, France
E. Teodorescu />Horia Hulubei National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering, Bucharest-Magurele, Romania
F. Teubert />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
C. Thomas />Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
E. Thomas />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
J. van Tilburg />Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
V. Tisserand />LAPP, Université de Savoie, CNRS/IN2P3, Annecy-Le-Vieux, France
M. Tobin />Physik-Institut, Universität Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
S. Topp-Joergensen />Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
N. Torr />Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
E. Tournefier />LAPP, Université de Savoie, CNRS/IN2P3, Annecy-Le-Vieux, France />Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
S. Tourneur />Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
M. T. Tran />Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Switzerland
A. Tsaregorodtsev />CPPM, Aix-Marseille Université, CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, France
N. Tuning />Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
M. Ubeda Garcia />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
A. Ukleja />Soltan Institute for Nuclear Studies, Warsaw, Poland
P. Urquijo />Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY United States
U. Uwer />Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
V. Vagnoni />Sezione INFN di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
G. Valenti />Sezione INFN di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
R. Vazquez Gomez />Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
P. Vazquez Regueiro />Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
S. Vecchi />Sezione INFN di Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy
J. J. Velthuis />H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
M. Veltri />Sezione INFN di Firenze, Firenze, Italy
B. Viaud />LAL, Université Paris-Sud, CNRS/IN2P3, Orsay, France
I. Videau />LAL, Université Paris-Sud, CNRS/IN2P3, Orsay, France
D. Vieira />Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
X. Vilasis-Cardona />Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
J. Visniakov />Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
A. Vollhardt />Physik-Institut, Universität Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
D. Volyanskyy />Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK), Heidelberg, Germany
D. Voong />H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
A. Vorobyev />Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute (PNPI), Gatchina, Russia
H. Voss />Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK), Heidelberg, Germany
S. Wandernoth />Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
J. Wang />Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY United States
D. R. Ward />Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
N. K. Watson />University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
A. D. Webber />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
D. Websdale />Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
M. Whitehead />Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
D. Wiedner />Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
L. Wiggers />Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
G. Wilkinson />Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
M. P. Williams />Department of Physics, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom />STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
M. Williams />Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
F. F. Wilson />STFC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, United Kingdom
J. Wishahi />Fakultät Physik, Technische Universität Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany
M. Witek />Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland
W. Witzeling />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
S. A. Wotton />Cavendish Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
K. Wyllie />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland
Y. Xie />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
F. Xing />Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
Z. Xing />Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY United States
Z. Yang />Center for High Energy Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
R. Young />School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom
O. Yushchenko />Institute for High Energy Physics (IHEP), Protvino, Russia
M. Zangoli />Sezione INFN di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
M. Zavertyaev />Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK), Heidelberg, Germany
F. Zhang />Center for High Energy Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
L. Zhang />Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY United States
W. C. Zhang />School of Physics, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
Y. Zhang />Center for High Energy Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
A. Zhelezov />Physikalisches Institut, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
L. Zhong />Center for High Energy Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
A. Zvyagin />European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), Geneva, Switzerland

Collapse

First evidence of direct CP violation in charmless two-body decays of Bs0 mesons

Using a data sample corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 0.35  fb-1 collected by LHCb in 2011, we report the first evidence of CP violation in the decays of Bs0} mesons to K±π∓ pairs, ACP(Bs0→Kπ)=0.27±0.08(stat)±0.02(syst), with a significance of 3.3σ. Furthermore, we report the most precise measurement of CP violation in the decays of B0 mesons to K±π∓ pairs, ACP(B0→Kπ)=-0.088±0.011(stat)±0.008(syst), with a significance exceeding 6σ.

Differential branching fraction and angular analysis of the decay B0 → K*0 μ+ μ-

The angular distributions and the partial branching fraction of the decay B0 → K*0 μ+ μ- are studied by using an integrated luminosity of 0.37  fb(-1) of data collected with the LHCb detector. The forward-backward asymmetry of the muons, A(FB), the fraction of longitudinal polarization, F(L), and the partial branching fraction dB/dq2 are determined as a function of the dimuon invariant mass. The measurements are in good agreement with the standard model predictions and are the most precise to date. In the dimuon invariant mass squared range 1.00-6.00  GeV2/c4, the results are A(FB)=-0.06(-0.14)(+0.13)±0.04, F(L)=0.55±0.10±0.03, and dB/dq2=(0.42±0.06±0.03)×10(-7)  c4/GeV2. In each case, the first error is statistical and the second systematic.

First observation of the decays B(0) → D(+)K(-)π(+)π(-) and B(-) → D(0)K(-)π(+)π(-)

First observations of the Cabibbo-suppressed decays B(0) → D(+)K(-)π(+)π(-) and B(-) → D(0)K(-)π(+)π(-) are reported using 35 pb(-1) of data collected with the LHCb detector. Their branching fractions are measured with respect to the corresponding Cabibbo-favored decays, from which we obtain B(B(0) → D(+)K(-)π(+)π(-))/B(B(0) → D(+)π(-)π(+)π(-))=(5.9±1.1±0.5)×10(-2) and B(B(-) → D(0)K(-)π(+)π(-))/B(B(-) → D(0)π(-)π(+)π(-))=(9.4±1.3±0.9)×10(-2), where the uncertainties are statistical and systematic, respectively. The B(-) → D(0)K(-)π(+)π(-) decay is particularly interesting, as it can be used in a similar way to B(-) → D(0)K(-) to measure the Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa phase γ.

Observation of B(s)(0) → J/ψf(2)'(1525) in J/ψK+ K- final states

The decay B(s)(0) → J/ψK+ K- is investigated using 0.16  fb(-1) of data collected with the LHCb detector using 7 TeV pp collisions. Although the J/ψϕ channel is well known, final states at higher K+ K- masses have not previously been studied. In the K+ K- mass spectrum we observe a significant signal in the f(2)'(1525) region as well as a nonresonant component. After subtracting the nonresonant component, we find B(B(s)(0) → J/ψf(2)'(1525))/B(B(s)(0) → J/ψϕ) = (26.4 ± 2.7 ± 2.4)%.

Evidence for CP violation in time-integrated D0→h(-)h(+) decay rates

A search for time-integrated CP violation in D(0)→h(-)h(+) (h=K, π) decays is presented using 0.62 fb(-1) of data collected by LHCb in 2011. The flavor of the charm meson is determined by the charge of the slow pion in the D(*+)→D(0)π(+) and D(*-)→D[over ¯](0)π(-) decay chains. The difference in CP asymmetry between D(0)→K(-)K(+) and D(0)→π(-)π(+), ΔA(CP)≡A(CP)(K(-)K(+))-A(CP)(π(-)π(+)), is measured to be [-0.82±0.21(stat)±0.11(syst)]%. This differs from the hypothesis of CP conservation by 3.5 standard deviations.

Search for lepton number violating decays B+ → π- μ+ μ+ and B+ → K- μ+ μ+

A search is performed for the lepton number violating decay B+ → h- μ+ μ+, where h- represents a K- or a π-, using an integrated luminosity of 36  pb(-1) of data collected with the LHCb detector. The decay is forbidden in the standard model but allowed in models with a Majorana neutrino. No signal is observed in either channel and limits of B(B+ → K- μ+ μ+) < 5.4×10(-8) and B(B+ → π- μ+ μ+) < 5.8×10(-8) are set at the 95% confidence level. These improve the previous best limits by factors of 40 and 30, respectively.

Measurement of the CP-violating phase ϕ(s) in the decay B(s)(0) → J/ψϕ

We present a measurement of the time-dependent CP-violating asymmetry in B(s)(0) → J/ψϕ decays, using data collected with the LHCb detector at the LHC. The decay time distribution of B(s)(0) → J/ψϕ is characterized by the decay widths Γ(H) and Γ(L) of the heavy and light mass eigenstates, respectively, of the B(s)(0) - B(s)(0) system and by a CP-violating phase ϕ(s). In a sample of about 8500 B(s)(0) → J/ψϕ events isolated from 0.37  fb(-1) of pp collisions at sqrt[s] = 7  TeV, we measure ϕ(s) = 0.15 ± 0.18(stat) ± 0.06(syst)  rad. We also find an average B(s)(0) decay width Γ(s) ≡ (Γ(L) + Γ(H))/2 = 0.657 ± 0.009(stat) ± 0.008(syst)  ps(-1) and a decay width difference ΔΓ(s) ≡ Γ(L) - Γ(H) = 0.123 ± 0.029(stat) ± 0.011(syst)  ps(-1). Our measurement is insensitive to the transformation (ϕ(s),ΔΓ(s)) ↦ (π - ϕ(s), -ΔΓ(s)).

Determination of f(s)/f(d) for 7 TeV pp collisions and measurement of the B0→D-K+ branching fraction

The relative abundance of the three decay modes B(0)→D(-)K(+), B(0)→D(-)π(+), and B(s)(0)→D(s)(-)π(+) produced in 7 TeV pp collisions at the LHC is determined from data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35 pb(-1). The branching fraction of B(0)→D(-)K(+) is found to be B(B(0)→D(-)K(+)) = (2.01 ± 0.18(stat) ± 0.14(syst)) × 10(-4). The ratio of fragmentation fractions f(s)/f(d) is determined through the relative abundance of B(s)(0)→D(s)(-)π(+) to B(0)→D(-)K(+) and B(0)→D(-)π(+), leading to f(s)/f(d) = 0.253 ± 0.017 ± 0.017 ± 0.020, where the uncertainties are statistical, systematic, and theoretical, respectively.

A combination of misoprostol and estradiol for preoperative cervical ripening in postmenopausal women: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the impact of 1000 microg of self-administered vaginal misoprostol versus self-administered vaginal placebo on preoperative cervical ripening after 2 weeks of pretreatment with estradiol vaginal tablets in postmenopausal women prior to day-care operative hysteroscopy.

DESIGN

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled sequential trial.

SETTING

Norwegian university teaching hospital.

POPULATION

Sixty-seven postmenopausal women referred for day-care operative hysteroscopy.

METHODS

The women were randomised to receive either 1000 microg of self-administered vaginal misoprostol or self-administered vaginal placebo on the evening before day-care operative hysteroscopy. All women had administered a 25-microg vaginal estradiol tablet daily for 14 days prior to the operation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

PRIMARY OUTCOME

preoperative cervical dilatation at hysteroscopy.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

difference in dilatation at recruitment and before hysteroscopy, number of women who achieved a preoperative cervical dilatation of 5 mm or more, acceptability, complications and adverse effects.

RESULTS

The mean cervical dilatation was 5.7 mm (SD, 1.6 mm) in the misoprostol group and 4.7 mm (SD, 1.5 mm) in the placebo group, the mean difference in cervical dilatation being 1.0 mm (95% CI, 0.2-1.7 mm). Self-administered vaginal misoprostol of 1000 microg at home on the evening before day-care hysteroscopy is safe and highly acceptable, although a small proportion of women experienced lower abdominal pain.

CONCLUSIONS

One thousand micrograms of self-administered vaginal misoprostol, 12 hours prior to day-care hysteroscopy, after 14 days of pretreatment with vaginal estradiol, has a significant cervical ripening effect compared with placebo in postmenopausal women.

Flow differences between endometrial polyps and cancer: a prospective study using intravenous contrast-enhanced transvaginal color flow Doppler and three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether assessment of blood flow by transvaginal color Doppler and three-dimensional power Doppler imaging, enhanced by intravenous contrast, may be useful in the differentiation between benign endometrial polyps and endometrial cancer.

METHODS

A prospective study was performed comparing 17 women with benign endometrial polyps and 17 women with endometrial cancer. Transvaginal color Doppler and three-dimensional power Doppler angiography were performed before and after injection of intravenous contrast. The pulsatility index (PI) and the resistance index (RI) of the polyp feeding vessel or central vessel in malignant lesions, as well as the power Doppler endometrial flow indices vascularization index (VI), flow index (FI) and vascularization flow index (VFI), were calculated before and after enhancement by contrast, and compared between the two groups of women.

RESULTS

PI (mean difference +/- SD, 0.68 +/- 0.22; 95% CI, 0.23-1.13; P = 0.004) and RI (mean difference +/- SD, 0.16 +/- 0.08; 95% CI, 0.00-0.32; P = 0.045) were significantly lower in vessels of malignant tumors than in those of benign endometrial polyps after enhancement by intravenous contrast. No significant differences in PI, RI, VI, FI or VFI before enhancement by contrast, or in VI, FI or VFI after enhancement by contrast, were detected between women with endometrial polyps and those with endometrial cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Transvaginal color Doppler examination enhanced by intravenous contrast may help to discriminate between benign endometrial polyps and cancer. Larger studies are required to confirm these findings.

Long-term outcomes following laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy

OBJECTIVE

Evaluation of long-term outcomes following laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LSH).

DESIGN

Retrospective postal questionnaire.

SETTING

Norwegian university teaching hospital.

POPULATION

A total of 315 consecutive patients.

METHODS

A questionnaire sent to all patients who underwent a LSH during 2004 and 2005.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Persistent vaginal bleeding and pelvic pain, patient acceptability of such symptoms and patient satisfaction following LSH.

RESULTS

A total of 240 women (78%) completed the questionnaire. About 24% reported experiencing vaginal bleeding up to 3 years following their hysterectomy, although this was rated as minimal in 90% of cases, resulting in a mean bothersome score of 1.1 (SD 2.0) on a 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS). Women operated on by less experienced surgeons were more likely to report vaginal bleeding following surgery (P = 0.02). About 74% of women reported having menstrual pain prior to surgery, with a mean score of 6.8 (SD 2.1) (10-point VAS). Up to 3 years following surgery, 38% continued to experience menstrual pain, although this was significantly less intense with a mean score of 3.5 (SD 2.2) (P < 0.01). While all women reported a decrease in the amount of pain experienced following the hysterectomy, those having a hysterectomy because of endometriosis reported significantly higher levels of menstrual/cyclical pain after surgery compared with women who had a hysterectomy for other reasons (P < 0.01). Ninety per cent of women reported being satisfied with their surgery.

CONCLUSION

Although vaginal bleeding and pelvic pain are frequently observed following LSH, these symptoms are significantly reduced and patient satisfaction is high.

Does self-administered vaginal misoprostol result in cervical ripening in postmenopausal women after 14 days of pre-treatment with estradiol? Trial protocol for a randomised, placebo-controlled sequential trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the impact of 1000 micrograms of self-administered vaginal misoprostol versus self-administered vaginal placebo on preoperative cervical ripening after pre-treatment with estradiol vaginal tablets at home in postmenopausal women prior to day-care operative hysteroscopy.

DESIGN

Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled sequential trial. The boundaries for the sequential trial were calculated on the primary outcomes of a difference of cervical dilatation > or = 1 millimetre, with the assumption of a type 1 error of 0.05 and a power of 0.95.

SETTING

Norwegian university teaching hospital.

POPULATION

Postmenopausal women referred for day-care operative hysteroscopy.

METHODS

The women were randomised to either 1000 micrograms of self-administered vaginal misoprostol or self-administered vaginal placebo the evening before day-care operative hysteroscopy. All women had administered a 25-microgram vaginal estradiol tablet daily for 14 days prior to the operation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Preoperative cervical dilatation (difference between misoprostol and placebo group, primary outcome), difference in dilatation before and after administration of misoprostol or placebo, number of women who achieve a preoperative cervical dilatation > or = 5 millimetres, acceptability, complications and side effects (secondary outcomes).

RESULTS

Intra-operative findings and distribution of cervical dilatation in the two treatment groups: values are given as median (range) or n (%). Difference in dilatation before and after administration of misoprostol and placebo: values are given as median (range) of intraindividual differences. Percentage of women who achieve a cervical dilatation of > or = 5 mm, percentage of women who were difficult to dilate. Acceptability in the two treatment groups: values are given as completely acceptable n (%), fairly acceptable n (%), fairly unacceptable n (%), completely unacceptable n (%). Pain in the two treatment groups: pain was measured with a visual analogue scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (unbearable pain): values are given as median (range). Occurrence of side effects in the two treatment groups. Values are given as n (%). Complications given as n (%).

FUNDING SOURCES

No pharmaceutical company was involved in this study. A research grant from the regional research board of Northern Norway has been awarded to finance Dr K.S.O.'s leave from Hammerfest hospital as well as travel expenses between Hammerfest and Oslo, and research courses. The research grant from Prof B.I.N. (Helse Øst) funded the purchase of estradiol tablets, the manufacturing costs of misoprostol and placebo capsules from the hospital pharmacy, as well as the costs incurred for preparing the randomisation schedule and distribution of containers containing capsules to hospital. Prof B.I.N.'s research grant also funded insurance for the study participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Estimated completion date 31 December 2008.