175 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20732495)
1. 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]
2. Twenty-year durability of the aortic Hancock II bioprosthesis in young patients: is it durable enough?
Une D; Ruel M; David TE
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg; 2014 Nov; 46(5):825-30. PubMed ID: 24510909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. 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]
4. Twenty-year clinical experience with porcine bioprostheses.
Fann JI; Miller DC; Moore KA; Mitchell RS; Oyer PE; Stinson EB; Robbins RC; Reitz BA; Shumway NE
Ann Thorac Surg; 1996 Nov; 62(5):1301-11; discussion 1311-2. PubMed ID: 8893561
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. 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]
6. Randomized, prospective assessment of bioprosthetic valve durability. Hancock versus Carpentier-Edwards valves.
Sarris GE; Robbins RC; Miller DC; Mitchell RS; Moore KA; Stinson EB; Oyer PE; Reitz BA; Shumway NE
Circulation; 1993 Nov; 88(5 Pt 2):II55-64. PubMed ID: 8222197
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Eighteen-year follow up after Hancock II bioprosthesis insertion.
Legarra JJ; Llorens R; Catalan M; Segura I; Trenor AM; de Buruaga JS; Rabago G; Sarralde A
J Heart Valve Dis; 1999 Jan; 8(1):16-24. PubMed ID: 10096477
[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. Freedom from structural valve deterioration among patients aged < or = 60 years undergoing Freestyle stentless aortic valve replacement.
Bach DS; Metras J; Doty JR; Yun KL; Dumesnil JG; Kon ND
J Heart Valve Dis; 2007 Nov; 16(6):649-55; discussion 656. PubMed ID: 18095515
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Experience with low-dose aspirin as thromboprophylaxis for the Tissuemed porcine aortic bioprosthesis: a survey of five years' experience.
Goldsmith I; Lip GY; Mukundan S; Rosin MD
J Heart Valve Dis; 1998 Sep; 7(5):574-9. PubMed ID: 9793859
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Late incidence and determinants of reoperation in patients with prosthetic heart valves.
Ruel M; Kulik A; Rubens FD; Bédard P; Masters RG; Pipe AL; Mesana TG
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg; 2004 Mar; 25(3):364-70. PubMed ID: 15019662
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Late outcomes for aortic valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis: up to 17-year follow-up in 1,000 patients.
McClure RS; Narayanasamy N; Wiegerinck E; Lipsitz S; Maloney A; Byrne JG; Aranki SF; Couper GS; Cohn LH
Ann Thorac Surg; 2010 May; 89(5):1410-6. PubMed ID: 20417753
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. Aortic and mitral valve replacement in children: is there any role for biologic and bioprosthetic substitutes?
Alsoufi B; Manlhiot C; McCrindle BW; Canver CC; Sallehuddin A; Al-Oufi S; Joufan M; Al-Halees Z
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg; 2009 Jul; 36(1):84-90; discussion 90. PubMed ID: 19369085
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The mosaic valve clinical performance at seven years: results from a multicenter prospective clinical trial.
Fradet G; Bleese N; Busse E; Jamieson E; Raudkivi P; Goldstein J; Metras J
J Heart Valve Dis; 2004 Mar; 13(2):239-46; discussion 246-7. PubMed ID: 15086263
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Aortic and mitral valve replacement with the Carpentier-Edwards pericardial bioprosthesis: 10-year results.
Murakami T; Eishi K; Nakano S; Kobayashi J; Sasako Y; Isobe F; Kosakai Y; Kito Y; Kawashima Y
J Heart Valve Dis; 1996 Jan; 5(1):45-9. PubMed ID: 8834725
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Aortic valve replacement with the Hancock standard, Björk-Shiley, and Lillehei-Kaster prostheses. A comparison based on follow-up from 1 to 15 years.
Milano AD; Bortolotti U; Mazzucco A; Guerra F; Magni A; Gallucci V
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1989 Jul; 98(1):37-47. PubMed ID: 2739424
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Fifteen years follow up with the St. Jude Medical Biocor porcine bioprosthesis.
Mykén P; Bech-Hanssen O; Phipps B; Caidahl K
J Heart Valve Dis; 2000 May; 9(3):415-22. PubMed ID: 10888100
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
