| Literature DB >> 36135002 |
Francesco Nappi1, Sanjeet Singh Avtaar Singh2.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The choice of valve substitute for aortic valve surgery is tailored to the patient with specific indications and contraindications to consider. The use of an autologous pulmonary artery (PA) with a simultaneous homograft in the pulmonary position is called a Ross procedure. It permits somatic growth and the avoidance of lifelong anticoagulation. Concerns remain on the functionality of a pulmonary autograft in the aortic position when exposed to systemic pressure.Entities:
Keywords: biomechanics ross operation; finite element analysis; living tissue; pulmonary autograft; pulmonary autograft expansion
Year: 2022 PMID: 36135002 PMCID: PMC9495771 DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering9090456
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bioengineering (Basel) ISSN: 2306-5354
Figure 1(A–F) The pulmonary autograft can be implanted using 2 methods. (A–C) Subcoronary implantation or (D–F) free-end/mini-root technique. In the subcoronary technique, the pulmonary valve is taken and inserted only with its leaflets and annulus. In the mini-root technique, the pulmonary valve is implanted with its pulmonary trunk so that the PA is withdrawn from the infundibulum of the right ventricle, respecting its morphology. Abbreviation; PA, pulmonary autograft.
Figure 2Ross operation after 23 years. Pulmonary autograft (red arrow), pulmonary homograft (white arrow).
Figure 3Prisma flow diagram.
Overview of studies obtained by systematic review reporting young adult and pediatric series of Ross operations.
| First Author/Year of | Study Type | Period of Surgery | Number of Patients | Mean Age, y | Surgical Technique | Biomechanical Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aboud 2021 [ | Retrospective | 1988–2001 | 2244 | 33 (16–61) | RR | † At 25 yrs excellent biomechanical functioning in unreinforced PA root with slight dilatation. No dilatation in RR. Excellent biomechanical functioning of PA valve in SC implantation |
| Nappi 2018 [ | Retrospective | 1998–2002 | 66 | 29 (16 mth–62) | RR | † At 22 yrs excellent biomechanical functioning in unreinforced PA root with slight dilatation. No dilatation in reinforced Ross. Excellent biomechanical functioning of PA valve in SC implantation |
| Sievers 2016 [ | Retrospective/Prospective | 1990–2013 | 1779 | 31 | RR | † At 20 yrs Excellent biomechanical functioning in unreinforced PA root with slight dilatation. No dilatation in reinforced Ross. Excellent biomechanical functioning of PA valve in SC implantation |
| Andreas 2014 [ | Retrospective | 1991–2011 | 246 | 25 | RR | Slight dilatation in PA root implanted at STJ with excellent biomechanical performance |
| Da Costa 2014 [ | Retrospective | 1995–2013 | 441 | 31 (5–56) | Root/IC/ | Slight dilatation in PA root implanted at STJ with excellent biomechanical performance. Excellent biomechanical performance of PA valve in SC implantation |
| Ruzmetov 2012 [ | Retrospective | 1990–2011 | 106 | 18 (1 mth–40) | Root | Slight dilatation in PA root implanted at STJ. Biomechanical performance of PA root guaranteed no failure |
| Bohm 2009 [ | Retrospective | 1995-2006 | 467 | 41 (26–56) | Root/ | Slight dilatation in PA root with excellent biomechanical performance. No failure of PA valve with biomechanical performance in young adults with SC implantation |
| Elkins 2008 [ | Retrospective | 1986-2002 | 487 | 24 (2–62) | Root | Slight dilatation in PA root reinforced at level of STJ. Excellent biomechanical performance of PA root and valve |
| Klieverik 2008 [ | Prospective | 1987-2007 | 63 | 29 (16–52) | Root/IC | Excellent biomechanical functioning in reinforced PA root with IC procedure |
| Klieverik 2007 [ | Prospective | 1988–2005 | 146 | 22 (0.3–52) | Root/IC | Excellent biomechanical functioning in reinforced PA root with IC procedure |
| Chiappini 2007 [ | Retrospective | 1991–2005 | 219 | 36 (0.5–64) | Root/IC/ | PA root reinforced with IC technique guaranteed slight dilatation and excellent biomechanical functioning |
| Pasquali 2007 [ | Retrospective | 1995–2004 | 121 | 8.2 (0–34) | RK | No PA root dilatation in RR. No histological studies have tested the detrimental effect of Dacron graft on biomechanics of RR |
| Brown 2007 [ | Retrospective | 1993–2005 | 170 | 25 (0–61) | RK | No PA root dilatation No histological studies have tested the detrimental effect of Dacron graft on biomechanics in RR |
| Kumar 2005 [ | Retrospective | 1993–2003 | 153 | 28 (0–65) | Root | Optimal biomechanical performance in PA root with slight dilatation. No use of external reinforcement |
| Kumar 2006 [ | Retrospective | 1993–2003 | 81 | 21 (0–51) | Root | Excellent biomechanical functioning in PA root with slight dilatation. No use of external reinforcement |
| Kouchoukos 2004 [ | Retrospective | 1989–2002 | 119 | 31 (5–56) | Root | Optimal biomechanical functioning in PA root with slight dilatation. No use of external reinforcement in RR |
| Luciani 2012 [ | Retrospective | 1994–2004 | 112 | 29 (6–49) | Root/IC/ | Slight dilatation in PA root implanted in IC. Biomechanical performance of PA root guaranteed no failure. Excellent biomechanical performance of PA valve in SC implantation and in IC technique |
| Raja 2004 [ | Retrospective | 1996–2003 | 38 | 13 (1–30) | Root | Optimal biomechanical performance in PA root with no dilatation. No use of external reinforcement in RR |
| Alphonso 2004 [ | Retrospective | 1991–2002 | 60 | 15 (0.5–67) | SC/IC | Very good biomechanical performance of PA valve in SC implantation using IC technique. |
| Sakaguchi 2003 [ | Retrospective | 1986–2000 | 399 | 23 (0–59) | Root/IC/ | Optimal biomechanical performance of PA valve in SC implantation using IC technique. Slight expansion in PA root implant |
| Concha 2003 [ | Prospective | 1991–2002 | 169 | 30 (0–54) | Root | Excellent biomechanical performance in PA root implant with slight expansion. No use of external reinforcement |
| Takkenberg 2002 [ | Retrospective | 1988–2000 | 343 | 26 (0–58) | Root/IC/ | Excellent biomechanical performance in unreinforced PA root using the IC technique. Slight dilatation. Excellent biomechanical functioning of PA valve in SC implantation |
| Pessotto 2001 [ | Retrospective | 1992–1999 | 111 | 16 (0–67) | Root | No PA root expansion with optimal biomechanical performance in unreinforced root. No PA valve failure in SC implantation with excellent biomechanical functioning. |
| Laudito 2001 [ | Retrospective | 1993–2000 | 72 | 9 (0–40) | RK | Preserved biomechanical features of PA root |
| Sharoni 2000 [ | Retrospective | 1996–1999 | 40 | 8 (0–41) | Root | Slight expansion of unreinforced PA root with preserved biomechanical features of PA root |
| Moidl 2000 [ | Prospective | 1991 | 109 | 32 (6–59) | Root | Slight expansion of unreinforced PA root with preserved biomechanical features. Optimal performance of PA valve in SC implantation |
| Chambers1997 [ | Retrospective | 1967–1984 | 131 | 32 (11–52) | Root/SC | Slight expansion of unreinforced PA root with preserved biomechanical features. Optimal performance of PA valve in SC implantation |
| Matsuki 1988 [ | Retrospective | 1967–1986 | 241 | (9–60) | SC | 25 yrs follow up optimal performance of PA valve in SC implantation without failure |
| Gula 1979 [ | Retrospective | 1967–1977 | 188 | 30 (9–64) | SC | Optimal performance of PA valve in SC implantation without failure |
| Somerville 1979 [ | Retrospective | 1967–1972 | 85 | 30 (12–54) | SC | Optimal performance of PA valve in SC implantation without failure |
Abbreviations; IC, inclusion cylinder; PA, pulmonary autograft; RK; Ross–Konno; RR, root-reinforced; SC, subcoronary; † maximum follow up.
Overview of studies obtained by systematic review reporting pediatric series of Ross operation.
| First Author/Year of Publication/Location | Study Type | Period of Surgery | Number of Patients | Mean Age, y | Surgical Technique | Biomechanical Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stewart 2007 [ | Retrospective | 1994–2005 | 46 | 13 (1–21) | Root | Optimal biomechanics with slight dilatation in PA unreinforced root |
| Ruzmetov 2012 [ | Retrospective | 1993-2005 | 81 | <18 yrs | Root/IC | No dilatation in PA root with IC. Optimal biomechanical performance without failure in PA valve and root |
| Kalavrouziotis 2006 [ | Retrospective | 1996–2004 | 35 | 10 (0.3–18) | Root | Optimal biomechanics of PA valve and root with slight dilatation of PA root |
| Bohm 2006 [ | Retrospective | 1995–2004 | 60 | 12 (1–20) | Root | Slight dilatation in PA unreinforced root. Preserved biomechanics of PA valve and root |
| Takkenberg 2005 [ | Prospective | 1988–2003 | 47 | 8 (0–15) | Root | Optimal biomechanics of PA valve and root in absence of IA. No dilatation in PA unreinforced root |
| Khwaja 2005 [ | Retrospective | 1992–2005 | 53 | 14 (10–21) | Root | Slight dilatation in PA unreinforced root. Preserved biomechanics of PA valve and root |
| Hazekamp 2005 [ | Retrospective | 1994–2003 | 53 | 9 (0–18) | Root | Slight dilatation in PA unreinforced root. Optimal biomechanics of PA valve and root |
| Hraska 2004 [ | Retrospective | 1997–2003 | 66 | 13 (0–23) | Root/RK | No dilatation in PA-RR with Dacron graft. Very good biomechanical performance without failure in PA valve and root |
| Al-Halees 2002 [ | Retrospective | 1990–2000 | 53 | 8 (0–18) | Root/IC | No dilatation in PA root with IC. Optimal biomechanical performance without failure in PA valve and root |
| Elkins 2001 (61) | Retrospective | 1986–2001 | 178 | 10 (0–18) | Root/IC | No dilatation in PA root with IC. Optimal biomechanical performance without failure in PA valve and root |
Abbreviations; IC, inclusion cylinder; PA, pulmonary autograft; RK; Ross–Konno; RR, root-reinforced.
Figure 4(A) Studies reporting long-term outcomes (>15 Years) of the Ross procedure in adult and pediatric populations; (B) Studies comparing the Ross procedure to homograft and conventional prosthesis; Abbreviation; RCT, randomized clinical trial. [8,9,13,14,28,31,37,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50].
Figure 5(A) Stress–stretch curves for pulmonary (left) and aorta (right) leaflet. (A) Pulmonary autograft (black arrow) and aorta explanted (red arrow) at 1 year. (B) Stress–stretch curves for aorta: longitudinal (top–left) and circumferential (top–right) direction; stress–stretch curves for pulmonary artery: longitudinal (bottom–left) and circumferential (bottom–right) direction. (C) Synoptic of the (top) average stress–stretch curves for both aorta and pulmonary artery along with the two mechanically relevant directions (see legend for details) and (bottom) a table with the fitting parameters.
Figure 6(A) Left: pulmonary autograft reinforced with semiresorbable prosthetics integrated in pulmonary autograft wall. Right: geometry of the FE model, with a detailed correlation of the native aorta (in red) and the pulmonary artery tract (blue), integrated with the external e-PTFE structure at the time of full development (B) Overall sketch of the Finite Element model reconstruction of the aorta-suture-autograft-annulus ensemble: undeformed system (left); deformed (at the maximum pressure level) model (right) and cross-section with applied pressure. At the bottom, the legend with the details of the elements used, distinguished for material properties. (C) Sequence of deformations at increasing pressure levels up to 80 mm Hg. The contour plots refer to the displacements along the radial direction (in mm). (D) Hoop (circumferential) and longitudinal (axial) stress profiles as a function of the vessel axis (middle), with contour plot details showing the spatially inhomogeneous distribution of the stresses (in kPa). Abbreviations; e-PTFE; expanded polytetrafluoroethylene.
Figure 7(A) Pulmonary autograft reinforced with 15 mm-wide bands of knitted PDS. (B) PA implanted in aortic position. (C) The media of pulmonary autograft is perfectly intact. Remnants of the slowly resorbable material of PDS are highlighted in the adventitia (black arrow). (D) The histology of PA revealed a complete resorption of the PDS mesh with no damage to the media and an increase in the regenerative connective component especially at adventitial level. This regenerative tissue was found to be constituted by elastic fibers as can be seen in the Masson’s Trichrome staining. Black arrow shows the tunica media with normal thickness and no disruption, red arrow reveals elastin fibers and violet arrow highlights no inflammatory reaction. Abbreviations: PDS, polydioxanone (Ethicon Inc. Johnson & Johnson; Bridgewater, NJ, USA); PA, pulmonary autograft.
Figure 8The ability of resorbable hydrogels such as PDF to modify the elastomechanical function of the vessel wall. The application of a bioresorbable reinforcement with the function of hydrogel is able to modify the behavior of the curve of distensible materials as the PA wall, obtaining an increase in their elastic properties. This is observed in the curve as the shift of A (panel A left) toward A′ (panel B left) with increased elasticity and compliance. The maximum distensibility, point C toward C′, as the reinforcement effectively prevented massive dilation. This provoked a reduction in the critical area determined by the fall of the curve (panel B left). The potential elastic energy depended on the extension of the surface and on the composition of the material constituting the cylinder including the intramolecular cohesion forces. We demonstrated histologically that during the resorption process of a PDS scaffold applied to the PA (panel B), a remodeling process of the vessel wall occurred, resulting in a denser connective architecture of the tunica media with an increase in its elastic component.