Literature DB >> 24771757

Ross procedure: is the root replacement technique superior to the sub-coronary implantation technique? Long-term results.

Denis A Berdajs1, Mirza Muradbegovic2, Daniel Haselbach2, Reto Kofmehl3, Johann Steurer3, Enrico Ferrari2, Ulrike Held3, Ludwig K von Segesser4.   

Abstract

There is controversy over the use of the Ross procedure with regard to the sub-coronary and root replacement technique and its long-term durability. A systematic review of the literature may provide insight into the outcomes of these two surgical subvariants. A systematic review of reports between 1967 and February 2013 on sub-coronary and root replacement Ross procedures was undertaken. Twenty-four articles were included and divided into (i) sub-coronary technique and (ii) root replacement technique. The 10-year survival rate for a mixed-patient population in the sub-coronary procedure was 87.3% with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 79.7-93.4 and 89.1% (95% CI, 85.3-92.1) in the root replacement technique category. For adults, it was 94 vs 95.3% (CI, 88.9-98.1) and in the paediatric series it was 90 vs 92.7% (CI, 86.9-96.0), respectively. Freedom from reoperation at 10 years was, in the mixed population, 83.3% (95% CI, 69.9-93.4) and 93.3% (95% CI, 89.4-95.9) for sub-coronary versus root replacement technique, respectively. In adults, it was 98 vs 91.2% (95% CI, 82.4-295.8), and in the paediatric series 93.3 vs 92.0% (95% CI, 86.1-96.5) for sub-coronary versus root replacement technique, respectively. The Ross procedure arguably has satisfactory results over 5 and 10 years for both adults and children. The results do not support the advantages of the sub-coronary technique over the root replacement technique. Root replacement was of benefit to patients undergoing reoperations on neoaorta and for long-term survival in mixed series.
© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aortic valve replacement; Heart valves; Pulmonary valve replacement; Ross procedure

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24771757     DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezu176

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg        ISSN: 1010-7940            Impact factor:   4.191


  5 in total

1.  Ross Procedure vs Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Amine Mazine; Rodolfo V Rocha; Ismail El-Hamamsy; Maral Ouzounian; Bobby Yanagawa; Deepak L Bhatt; Subodh Verma; Jan O Friedrich
Journal:  JAMA Cardiol       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 14.676

Review 2.  The use of allogenic and autologous tissue to treat aortic valve endocarditis.

Authors:  Francesco Nappi; Sanjeet Singh Avtaar Singh; Mario Lusini; Antonio Nenna; Ivancarmine Gambardella; Massimo Chello
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-09

Review 3.  Narrative review of the contemporary surgical treatment of unicuspid aortic valve disease.

Authors:  Maria von Stumm; Tatjana Sequeira-Gross; Johannes Petersen; Shiho Naito; Lisa Müller; Christoph Sinning; Evaldas Girdauskas
Journal:  Cardiovasc Diagn Ther       Date:  2021-04

4.  Surgical techniques for aortic valve xenotransplantation.

Authors:  Jennie H Kwon; Morgan Hill; Brielle Gerry; Steven W Kubalak; Muhammad Mohiuddin; Minoo N Kavarana; T Konrad Rajab
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2021-12-28       Impact factor: 1.637

Review 5.  The effectiveness and safety of pulmonary autograft as living tissue in Ross procedure: a systematic review.

Authors:  Francesco Nappi; Adelaide Iervolino; Sanjeet Singh Avtaar Singh
Journal:  Transl Pediatr       Date:  2022-02
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.