337 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7564433)
1. Tricuspid valve replacement: postoperative and long-term results.
Van Nooten GJ; Caes F; Taeymans Y; Van Belleghem Y; François K; De Bacquer D; Deuvaert FE; Wellens F; Primo G
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1995 Sep; 110(3):672-9. PubMed ID: 7564433
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. The valve choice in tricuspid valve replacement: 25 years of experience.
Van Nooten GJ; Caes FL; François KJ; Taeymans Y; Primo G; Wellens F; Leclerq JL; Deuvaert FE
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg; 1995; 9(8):441-6; discussion 446-7. PubMed ID: 7495588
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Tricuspid valve replacement. Fifteen years of experience with mechanical prostheses and bioprostheses.
Scully HE; Armstrong CS
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1995 Jun; 109(6):1035-41. PubMed ID: 7776666
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Long-term survival after tricuspid valve replacement. Results with seven different prostheses.
Jugdutt BI; Fraser RS; Lee SJ; Rossall RE; Callaghan JC
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1977 Jul; 74(1):20-7. PubMed ID: 141548
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Tricuspid valve replacement: porcine bioprostheses and mechanical prostheses.
Munro AI; Jamieson WR; Tyers GF; Germann E
Ann Thorac Surg; 1995 Aug; 60(2 Suppl):S470-3; discussion S473-4. PubMed ID: 7646210
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Simultaneous implantation of St. Jude Medical aortic and mitral prostheses.
Armenti F; Stephenson LW; Edmunds LH
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1987 Nov; 94(5):733-9. PubMed ID: 3669701
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Tricuspid valve replacement: bioprostheses are preferable.
Dalrymple-Hay MJ; Leung Y; Ohri SK; Haw MP; Ross JK; Livesey SA; Monro JL
J Heart Valve Dis; 1999 Nov; 8(6):644-8. PubMed ID: 10616242
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Is a bioprosthesis preferable in tricuspid valve replacement?
Hayashi J; Saito A; Yamamoto K; Watanabe H; Ohzeki H; Eguchi S
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1996 Oct; 44(5):230-3. PubMed ID: 8948549
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. 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]
10. The St. Jude Medical bileaflet valve prosthesis. A 5 year experience.
Chaux A; Czer LS; Matloff JM; DeRobertis MA; Stewart ME; Bateman TM; Kass RM; Lee ME; Gray RJ
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1984 Nov; 88(5 Pt 1):706-17. PubMed ID: 6492839
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. 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]
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. 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]
14. 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]
15. More than ten years' follow-up of the Hancock porcine bioprosthesis in Japan.
Kawachi Y; Tanaka J; Tominaga R; Kinoshita K; Tokunaga K
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1992 Jul; 104(1):5-13. PubMed ID: 1614215
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Long-term outcomes of tricuspid valve replacement in the current era.
Filsoufi F; Anyanwu AC; Salzberg SP; Frankel T; Cohn LH; Adams DH
Ann Thorac Surg; 2005 Sep; 80(3):845-50. PubMed ID: 16122441
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. 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]
18. Twenty-five year outcomes of tricuspid valve replacement comparing mechanical and biologic prostheses.
Garatti A; Nano G; Bruschi G; Canziani A; Colombo T; Frigiola A; Martinelli L; Menicanti L
Ann Thorac Surg; 2012 Apr; 93(4):1146-53. PubMed ID: 22342993
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Which type of valve should we use in tricuspid position? Long-term comparison between mechanical and biological valves.
Redondo Palacios A; López Menéndez J; Miguelena Hycka J; Martín García M; Varela Barca L; Ferreiro Marzal A; Muñoz Pérez R; Oliva de Anquín E; García Andrade I; Centella Hernández T; Celemín Canorea D; Rodríguez-Roda Stuart J
J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino); 2017 Oct; 58(5):739-746. PubMed ID: 27636399
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Mid term outcome and quality of life after aortic valve replacement in elderly people: mechanical versus stentless biological valves.
Florath I; Albert A; Rosendahl U; Alexander T; Ennker IC; Ennker J
Heart; 2005 Aug; 91(8):1023-9. PubMed ID: 16020589
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
