176 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 16935115)
1. Clinical results of Hancock II versus Hancock Standard at long-term follow-up.
Valfrè C; Rizzoli G; Zussa C; Ius P; Polesel E; Mirone S; Bottio T; Gerosa G
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2006 Sep; 132(3):595-601, 601.e1-2. PubMed ID: 16935115
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Fifteen-year results with the Hancock II valve: a multicenter experience.
Rizzoli G; Mirone S; Ius P; Polesel E; Bottio T; Salvador L; Zussa C; Gerosa G; Valfrè C
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2006 Sep; 132(3):602-9, 609.e1-4. PubMed ID: 16935116
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Biological versus mechanical aortic prosthesis? A nineteen-year comparison in a propensity-matched population.
Bottio T; Rizzoli G; Caprili L; Testolin L; Thiene G; Gerosa G
J Heart Valve Dis; 2005 Jul; 14(4):493-500. PubMed ID: 16116876
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Late results of heart valve replacement with the Hancock II bioprosthesis.
David TE; Ivanov J; Armstrong S; Feindel CM; Cohen G
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2001 Feb; 121(2):268-77. PubMed ID: 11174732
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Morphologic findings in explanted Hancock II porcine bioprostheses.
Butany J; Yu W; Silver MD; David TE
J Heart Valve Dis; 1999 Jan; 8(1):4-15. PubMed ID: 10096476
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Hancock II bioprosthesis for aortic valve replacement: the gold standard of bioprosthetic valves durability?
David TE; Armstrong S; Maganti M
Ann Thorac Surg; 2010 Sep; 90(3):775-81. PubMed ID: 20732495
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Performance of the Carpentier-Edwards SAV and Hancock-II porcine bioprostheses in aortic valve replacement.
Jamieson WR; David TE; Feindel CM; Miyagishima RT; Germann E
J Heart Valve Dis; 2002 May; 11(3):424-30. PubMed ID: 12056738
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Twenty-year results of the Hancock II bioprosthesis.
Borger MA; Ivanov J; Armstrong S; Christie-Hrybinsky D; Feindel CM; David TE
J Heart Valve Dis; 2006 Jan; 15(1):49-55; discussion 55-6. PubMed ID: 16480012
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Aortic valve replacement in patients aged 50 to 70 years: improved outcome with mechanical versus biologic prostheses.
Brown ML; Schaff HV; Lahr BD; Mullany CJ; Sundt TM; Dearani JA; McGregor CG; Orszulak TA
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2008 Apr; 135(4):878-84; discussion 884. PubMed ID: 18374773
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Structural durability in Carpentier Edwards Standard bioprosthesis in the mitral position: a 20-year experience.
Corbineau H; Du Haut Cilly FB; Langanay T; Verhoye JP; Leguerrier A
J Heart Valve Dis; 2001 Jul; 10(4):443-8. PubMed ID: 11499587
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Clinical outcomes with the Hancock II bioprosthetic valve.
Masters RG; Haddad M; Pipe AL; Veinot JP; Mesana T
Ann Thorac Surg; 2004 Sep; 78(3):832-6. PubMed ID: 15337001
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. [Structural valve deterioration of aortic bioprostheses and reoperation in octogenarians. Results and risk factors for survival].
Eitz T; Zittermann A; Fritzsche D; Kleikamp G; Körtke H; Körfer R
Herz; 2006 Oct; 31(7):699-703. PubMed ID: 17072786
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The effect of prosthetic valve type on survival after aortic valve surgery.
Del Rizzo DF; Abdoh A; Cartier P; Doty D; Westaby S
Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1999 Oct; 11(4 Suppl 1):1-8. PubMed ID: 10660158
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Risk-corrected impact of mechanical versus bioprosthetic valves on long-term mortality after aortic valve replacement.
Lund O; Bland M
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2006 Jul; 132(1):20-6. PubMed ID: 16798297
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Long-term outcome of the MitroFlow pericardial bioprosthesis in the elderly after aortic valve replacement.
Sjögren J; Gudbjartsson T; Thulin LI
J Heart Valve Dis; 2006 Mar; 15(2):197-202. PubMed ID: 16607900
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Seventeen-year clinical results of 1,037 Mitroflow pericardial heart valve prostheses in the aortic position.
Yankah CA; Schubel J; Buz S; Siniawski H; Hetzer R
J Heart Valve Dis; 2005 Mar; 14(2):172-9; discussion 179-80. PubMed ID: 15792176
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Aortic valve replacement with the Mitroflow pericardial bioprosthesis: durability results up to 21 years.
Yankah CA; Pasic M; Musci M; Stein J; Detschades C; Siniawski H; Hetzer R
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2008 Sep; 136(3):688-96. PubMed ID: 18805273
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Midterm survival of stented versus stentless valves: does concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting impact survival?
Del Rizzo DF; Freed D; Abdoh A; Doty D; Goldman BS; Jamieson WR; Westaby S
Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2001 Oct; 13(4 Suppl 1):148-55. PubMed ID: 11805964
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Long-term clinical and hemodynamic performance of the Hancock II versus the Perimount aortic bioprostheses.
Chan V; Kulik A; Tran A; Hendry P; Masters R; Mesana TG; Ruel M
Circulation; 2010 Sep; 122(11 Suppl):S10-6. PubMed ID: 20837899
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Mitral valve disease: if the mitral valve is not reparable/failed repair, is bioprosthesis suitable for replacement?
Jamieson WR; Gudas VM; Burr LH; Janusz MT; Fradet GJ; Ling H; Germann E; Lichtenstein SV
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg; 2009 Jan; 35(1):104-10. PubMed ID: 19056294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
