969 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 2739424)
1. 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]
2. Twelve-year comparison of a Bjork-Shiley mechanical heart valve with porcine bioprostheses.
Bloomfield P; Wheatley DJ; Prescott RJ; Miller HC
N Engl J Med; 1991 Feb; 324(9):573-9. PubMed ID: 1992318
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Long-term comparative analysis of the Björk-Shiley and Hancock valves implanted in 1975.
Martinell J; Fraile J; Artiz V; Moreno J; Rábago G
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1985 Nov; 90(5):741-9. PubMed ID: 4058046
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Late results of valve replacement with the Björk-Shiley valve (1973 to 1982).
Orszulak TA; Schaff HV; DeSmet JM; Danielson GK; Pluth JR; Puga FJ
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1993 Feb; 105(2):302-12. PubMed ID: 8429659
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Fourteen years' experience with the Björk-Shiley tilting disc prosthesis.
Sethia B; Turner MA; Lewis S; Rodger RA; Bain WH
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1986 Mar; 91(3):350-61. PubMed ID: 3951241
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Durability of porcine valves at fifteen years in a representative North American patient population.
Burdon TA; Miller DC; Oyer PE; Mitchell RS; Stinson EB; Starnes VA; Shumway NE
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1992 Feb; 103(2):238-51; discussion 251-2. PubMed ID: 1735989
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparative analysis of mechanical and bioprosthetic valves after aortic valve replacement.
Borkon AM; Soule LM; Baughman KL; Aoun H; Baumgartner WA; Gardner TJ; Watkins L; Gott VL; Reitz BA
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1987 Jul; 94(1):20-33. PubMed ID: 3600005
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Use of the Carpentier-Edwards porcine bioprosthesis: assessment of a patient selection policy.
Louagie Y; Noirhomme P; Aranguis E; Eucher P; Vanruyssevelt P; Buche M; Dion R; Jaumin P; Schoevaerdts JC; Chalant CH
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1992 Oct; 104(4):1013-24. PubMed ID: 1405658
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Comparative clinical results with Omniscience (STM1), Medtronic-Hall, and Björk-Shiley convexo-concave (70 degrees) prostheses in mitral valve replacement.
Cortina JM; Martinell J; Artiz V; Fraile J; Rábago G
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1986 Feb; 91(2):174-83. PubMed ID: 3945084
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Heart valve replacement with the Sorin tilting-disc prosthesis. A 10-year experience.
Milano A; Bortolotti U; Mazzucco A; Mossuto E; Testolin L; Thiene G; Gallucci V
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1992 Feb; 103(2):267-75. PubMed ID: 1735992
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
12. Early mechanical failures of the Hancock pericardial xenograft.
Bortolotti U; Milano A; Thiene G; Guerra F; Mazzucco A; Valente M; Talenti E; Gallucci V
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1987 Aug; 94(2):200-7. PubMed ID: 3613618
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Valve-related complications with the Hancock I porcine bioprosthesis. A twelve- to fourteen-year follow-up study.
Bernal JM; Rabasa JM; Cagigas JC; Echevarria JR; Carrion MF; Revuelta JM
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1991 May; 101(5):871-80. PubMed ID: 2023444
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The Hancock II porcine bioprosthesis. A preliminary report.
Bortolotti U; Milano A; Mazzucco A; Guerra F; Magni A; Santini F; Gallucci V
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1989 Mar; 97(3):415-20. PubMed ID: 2918737
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. Heart valve replacement--a report of 8- to 17-year follow-up.
Kimura M; Kitasato K; Kamatani M
Igaku Kenkyu; 1992 Apr; 62(2):57-64. PubMed ID: 1523944
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Performance of a fabricated trileaflet porcine bioprosthesis. Midterm follow-up of the Hancock modified-orifice valve.
DiSesa VJ; Allred EN; Kowalker W; Shemin RJ; Collins JJ; Cohn LH
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1987 Aug; 94(2):220-4. PubMed ID: 3613620
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Excellent durability of the Hancock porcine bioprosthesis in the tricuspid position. A sixteen-year follow-up study.
Kawachi Y; Tominaga R; Hisahara M; Nakashima A; Yasui H; Tokunaga K
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1992 Dec; 104(6):1561-6. PubMed ID: 1453721
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Long-term performance of the Hancock porcine bioprosthesis in the tricuspid position. A review of forty-five patients with fourteen-year follow-up.
Guerra F; Bortolotti U; Thiene G; Milano A; Mazzucco A; Talenti E; Stellin G; Gallucci V
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1990 May; 99(5):838-45. PubMed ID: 2329821
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
