115 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 859469)
21. Effects of fixation back pressure and antimineralization treatment on the morphology of porcine aortic bioprosthetic valves.
Flomenbaum MA; Schoen FJ
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1993 Jan; 105(1):154-64. PubMed ID: 8419696
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Experimental studies of the anatomical and functional characteristics of kangaroo aortic valve bioprostheses.
Weinhold C; Reichart B; Kemkes BM; Schaff J; Davila J; Eberhard C
Life Support Syst; 1984; 2(2):121-5. PubMed ID: 6482505
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Doppler assessment of mechanical aortic valve prostheses: effect of valve design and size of the aorta.
Mascherbauer J; Schima H; Maurer G; Baumgartner H
J Heart Valve Dis; 2004 Sep; 13(5):823-30. PubMed ID: 15473486
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. Early clinical and hemodynamic evaluation of the aortic intact porcine bioprosthesis.
Mullany CJ; Schaff HV; Orszulak TA; Miller FA
J Heart Valve Dis; 1994 Nov; 3(6):641-7. PubMed ID: 8000607
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Comparative hydrodynamic evaluation of bioprosthetic heart valves.
Marquez S; Hon RT; Yoganathan AP
J Heart Valve Dis; 2001 Nov; 10(6):802-11. PubMed ID: 11767190
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. [Doppler echocardiographic determination of the effective orifice area of mechanical heart valve prostheses in a flow model].
Fehske W; Köhler J; Rabahieh R; Braun P; Hostert A; Lüderitz B
Z Kardiol; 1991 Jul; 80(7):441-8. PubMed ID: 1926989
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Hydrodynamic comparison of biological prostheses during progressive valve calcification in a simulated exercise situation. An in vitro study.
Bakhtiary F; Dzemali O; Steinseiffer U; Schmitz C; Glasmacher B; Moritz A; Kleine P
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg; 2008 Nov; 34(5):960-3. PubMed ID: 18774723
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. In vitro study of percutaneous aortic valve replacement: selection of a tissue valve.
Flecher EM; Curry JW; Joudinaud TM; Saber H; MacNett J; Ahlin A; Weber PA; Duran CM
J Card Surg; 2008; 23(3):234-8. PubMed ID: 18435638
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. Physiological function of stentless aortic valves is altered by trimming and removal of aortic wall components.
Kuehnel RU; Stock UA; Wendt MO; Degenkolbe I; Jainski U; Hartrumpf M; Pohl M; Albes JM
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg; 2007 Apr; 6(2):182-7. PubMed ID: 17669805
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. [Continuous wave Doppler assessment of prosthetic valves in the mitral position: comparison of the St. Jude medical mechanical valve and the porcine xenograft valve].
Kisanuki A; Tei C; Arikawa K; Natsugoe K; Otsuji Y; Kawazoe Y; Tanaka H; Morishita Y; Maruko M; Taira A
J Cardiogr; 1985 Dec; 15(4):1119-27. PubMed ID: 3841894
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. In-vitro assessment of the functional performance of the decellularized intact porcine aortic root.
Korossis SA; Wilcox HE; Watterson KG; Kearney JN; Ingham E; Fisher J
J Heart Valve Dis; 2005 May; 14(3):408-21; discussion 422. PubMed ID: 15974537
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Hemodynamic performance of the new St. Jude Medical Epic Supra porcine bioprosthesis in comparison to the Medtronic Mosaic on the basis of patient annulus diameter.
Ruzicka DJ; Eichinger WB; Hettich IM; Bleiziffer S; Bauernschmitt R; Lange R
J Heart Valve Dis; 2008 Jul; 17(4):426-33; discussion 434. PubMed ID: 18751473
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
33. The influence of sizing on the dynamic function of the free-hand implanted porcine aortic homograft: an in vitro study.
Thubrikar MJ; Konstantinov IE; Selim GA; Gong GG; Fowler B; Robicsek F
J Heart Valve Dis; 1999 May; 8(3):242-53. PubMed ID: 10399656
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. In vitro pulsatile flow evaluation of a stentless porcine aortic bioprosthesis.
Sung HW; Le TN; Kingsbury CJ; Quintero LJ; Myers KE; Quijano RC
ASAIO J; 1995; 41(1):89-94. PubMed ID: 7727828
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Current status of porcine heterograft prostheses: a 5-year appraisal.
Hannah H; Reis RL
Circulation; 1976 Dec; 54(6 Suppl):III27-31. PubMed ID: 1033047
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. In vitro pulsatile flow hemodynamics of five mechanical aortic heart valve prostheses.
Walker PG; Yoganathan AP
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg; 1992; 6 Suppl 1():S113-23. PubMed ID: 1389270
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. In vitro comparison of bileaflet aortic heart valve prostheses. St. Jude Medical, CarboMedics, modified Edwards-Duromedics, and Sorin-Bicarbon valves.
Reul H; van Son JA; Steinseifer U; Schmitz B; Schmidt A; Schmitz C; Rau G
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1993 Sep; 106(3):412-20. PubMed ID: 8361181
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. The changing spectrum of bioprostheses hydrodynamic performance: considerations on in-vitro tests.
Bottio T; Tarzia V; Rizzoli G; Gerosa G
Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg; 2008 Oct; 7(5):750-4. PubMed ID: 18628343
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Three-dimensional coupled fluid-structure simulation of pericardial bioprosthetic aortic valve function.
Makhijani VB; Yang HQ; Dionne PJ; Thubrikar MJ
ASAIO J; 1997; 43(5):M387-92. PubMed ID: 9360067
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Clinical and hemodynamic results following triple valve replacement: mechanical vs porcine xenograft prostheses.
Rhodes GR; McIntosh CL; Redwood DR; Itscoitz SB; Epstein SE
Circulation; 1977 Sep; 56(3 Suppl):II122-7. PubMed ID: 884816
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
