115 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 859469)
1. A pulsatile flow study comparing the Hancock porcine xenograft aortic valve prostheses models 242 and 250.
Wright JT
Med Instrum; 1977; 11(2):114-7. PubMed ID: 859469
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Hemodynamic evaluation of the Hancock-modified orifice bioprosthesis in the aortic position.
Levin FH; Buckley MJ; Austen WG
Circulation; 1978 Sep; 58(3 Pt 2):I33-5. PubMed ID: 14740674
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. [Doppler echocardiography in assessing mechanical and biological heart valve prostheses].
Minardi G; Di Segni M; Boccardi L; Ferrari O; Giovannini E
G Ital Cardiol; 1988 Feb; 18(2):121-34. PubMed ID: 3410201
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Porcine valves: Hancock and Carpentier-Edwards aortic prostheses.
Fann JI; Miller DC
Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1996 Jul; 8(3):259-68. PubMed ID: 8843517
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A novel pulse duplicator system: evaluation of different valve prostheses.
Haaf P; Steiner M; Attmann T; Pfister G; Cremer J; Lutter G
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2009 Feb; 57(1):10-7. PubMed ID: 19169990
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [Hemodynamic performance of newly developed composite stentless porcine aortic valve: in vitro testing and in vivo experiment with sheep].
Song GM; Zhou JY; Hu SS; Cui JW; Song YH; Tang Y; Zhang Y; Jiang H; Yuan WM; Song XY
Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2008 Jul; 88(29):2059-63. PubMed ID: 19080436
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Hemodynamic and clinical comparison of the Hancock modified orifice and standard orifice bioprostheses in the aortic position.
Rossiter SJ; Miller DC; Stinson EB; Oyer PE; Reitz BA; Moreno-Cabral RJ; Mace JG; Robert EW; Tsagaris TJ; Sutton RB; Alderman EL; Shumway NE
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1980 Jul; 80(1):54-60. PubMed ID: 7382536
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. The influence of sizing and method of fixation on the hydrodynamic function of stentless, free-hand inserted porcine bioprosthesis: an in vitro study.
Revanna P; Fisher J; Watterson KG
J Heart Valve Dis; 1997 Jul; 6(4):433-8. PubMed ID: 9263877
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Hydrodynamic performance of the Medtronic Freestyle Aortic Root Bioprosthesis.
Yoganathan AP; Eberhardt CE; Walker PG
J Heart Valve Dis; 1994 Sep; 3(5):571-80. PubMed ID: 8000594
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [Specific features of the structure of the porcine aortic valve as a potential xenograft for the substitution of the human aorta valve].
Gavrilenkov VI
Vestn Khir Im I I Grek; 2004; 163(3):28-34. PubMed ID: 15317157
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Evaluation of the in vivo function of the Hancock porcine xenograft in the aortic position.
Johnson A; Thompson S; Vieweg WV; Daily P; Oury J; Peterson K
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1978 Apr; 75(4):599-605. PubMed ID: 642555
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Differences in Hancock and Carpentier-Edwards porcine xenograft aortic valve hemodynamics. Effect of valve size.
Khan SS; Mitchell RS; Derby GC; Oyer PE; Miller DC
Circulation; 1990 Nov; 82(5 Suppl):IV117-24. PubMed ID: 2225396
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Small aortic annulus: the hydrodynamic performances of 5 commercially available tissue valves.
Gerosa G; Tarzia V; Rizzoli G; Bottio T
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2006 May; 131(5):1058-64. PubMed ID: 16678590
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The influence of ventricular input impedance on the hydrodynamic performance of bioprosthetic aortic roots in vitro.
Jennings LM; Butterfield M; Walker PG; Watterson KG; Fisher J
J Heart Valve Dis; 2001 Mar; 10(2):269-75. PubMed ID: 11297215
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The in vitro hydrodynamic characteristics of the porcine pulmonary valve and root with regard to the ross procedure.
Nagy ZL; Fisher J; Walker PG; Watterson KG
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2000 Aug; 120(2):284-9. PubMed ID: 10917944
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Hemodynamic evaluation of Hancock and Carpentier-Edwards bioprostheses.
Levine FH; Carter JE; Buckley MJ; Daggett WM; Akins CW; Austen WG
Circulation; 1981 Aug; 64(2 Pt 2):II192-5. PubMed ID: 7249322
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Porcine aortic leaflet arrangement may contribute to clinical xenograft failure.
Grande KJ; Kunzelman KS; Cochran RP; David TE; Verrier ED
ASAIO J; 1993; 39(4):918-22. PubMed ID: 8123927
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. In-vitro hemodynamics of stented bioprosthetic heart valves in the tilted implantation position.
Babin-Ebell J; Sievers HH; Misfeld M; Runge M; Vogt PR; Scharfschwerdt M
J Heart Valve Dis; 2008 Sep; 17(5):566-70. PubMed ID: 18980091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. In vivo hemodynamic comparison of porcine and pericardial valves.
Cosgrove DM; Lytle BW; Gill CC; Golding LA; Stewart RW; Loop FD; Williams GW
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1985 Mar; 89(3):358-68. PubMed ID: 3974271
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
