OBJECTIVES: Reviewing reoperative mitral valve repair, we evaluated a predictor for future reoperation by comparing degenerative and rheumatic mitral regurgitation. METHODS: From June 1988 to September 2002, 159 patients with mitral valve regurgitation underwent a variety of surgical reconstruction. Our 9 subjects--2 men and 7 women with a mean age of 55.3 years--including 1 undergoing initial repair at an other hospital, underwent reoperation for mitral valve lesions. Four patients had rheumatic (Group R) and 5 degenerative (Group D) mitral valve disease. We studied reoperative outcomes and initial procedures were retrospectively. RESULTS: The mean interval from initial repair was 111 months. Mitral valve lesions at reoperation in Group D were annular dilation in 3, leaflet prolapse in 1, and suture disruption in 1, while that in Group R involved severe thickening of both leafle. Rerepair was possible in 3 patients of Group D, but all others, (including Group R patients) required valve replacement. All survived reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: Rerepair in rheumatic mitral regurgitation, rerepair was difficult. In degenerative mitral valve regurgitation, however, rerepair was possible because procedure-related origin was a major cause of reoperation. Reoperation can be prevented by proper technical improvement at initial repair.
OBJECTIVES: Reviewing reoperative mitral valve repair, we evaluated a predictor for future reoperation by comparing degenerative and rheumatic mitral regurgitation. METHODS: From June 1988 to September 2002, 159 patients with mitral valve regurgitation underwent a variety of surgical reconstruction. Our 9 subjects--2 men and 7 women with a mean age of 55.3 years--including 1 undergoing initial repair at an other hospital, underwent reoperation for mitral valve lesions. Four patients had rheumatic (Group R) and 5 degenerative (Group D) mitral valve disease. We studied reoperative outcomes and initial procedures were retrospectively. RESULTS: The mean interval from initial repair was 111 months. Mitral valve lesions at reoperation in Group D were annular dilation in 3, leaflet prolapse in 1, and suture disruption in 1, while that in Group R involved severe thickening of both leafle. Rerepair was possible in 3 patients of Group D, but all others, (including Group R patients) required valve replacement. All survived reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: Rerepair in rheumatic mitral regurgitation, rerepair was difficult. In degenerative mitral valve regurgitation, however, rerepair was possible because procedure-related origin was a major cause of reoperation. Reoperation can be prevented by proper technical improvement at initial repair.
Authors: E Braunberger; A Deloche; A Berrebi; F Abdallah; J A Celestin; P Meimoun; G Chatellier; S Chauvaud; J N Fabiani; A Carpentier Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-09-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: E A Grossi; A C Galloway; J S Miller; G H Ribakove; A T Culliford; R Esposito; J Delianides; P M Buttenheim; F G Baumann; F C Spencer; S B Colvin Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 1998-02 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: A Deloche; V A Jebara; J Y Relland; S Chauvaud; J N Fabiani; P Perier; G Dreyfus; S Mihaileanu; A Carpentier Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 1990-06 Impact factor: 5.209