115 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 859469)
41. Hydrodynamic evaluation of kangaroo aortic valve matrices for tissue valve engineering.
Narine KK; Kramm K; Dumont K; Jalali H; Sparks L; Segers P; Verdonck P; Van Nooten GJ
Artif Organs; 2006 Jun; 30(6):432-9. PubMed ID: 16734594
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
42. In vitro velocity and turbulence measurements in the vicinity of three new mechanical aortic heart valve prostheses: Björk-Shiley Monostrut, Omni-Carbon, and Duromedics.
Yoganathan AP; Sung HW; Woo YR; Jones M
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1988 May; 95(5):929-39. PubMed ID: 3361941
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
43. The effective orifice area/patient aortic annulus area ratio: a better way to compare different bioprostheses? A prospective randomized comparison of the Mosaic and Perimount bioprostheses in the aortic position.
Eichinger WB; Botzenhardt F; Guenzinger R; Bleiziffer S; Keithahn A; Bauernschmitt R; Lange R
J Heart Valve Dis; 2004 May; 13(3):382-8; discussion 388-9. PubMed ID: 15222284
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
44. Valve prosthesis hemodynamics and the problem of high transprosthetic pressure gradients.
Dumesnil JG; Yoganathan AP
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg; 1992; 6 Suppl 1():S34-7; discussion S38. PubMed ID: 1389276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
45. Small aortic annulus: the hydrodynamic performances of 5 commercially available bileaflet mechanical valves.
Bottio T; Caprili L; Casarotto D; Gerosa G
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2004 Sep; 128(3):457-62. PubMed ID: 15354108
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
46. Hemodynamic evaluation of the Angell-Shiley porcine xenograft.
Delcan JL; Chaitman BR; Lopez-Bescos L; Bonan R; Garcia-Dorado D; Rivera R
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1982 Aug; 84(2):297-305. PubMed ID: 7098515
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
47. In vitro evaluation of the long-body On-X bileaflet heart valve.
Hwang NH; Reul H; Reinhard P
J Heart Valve Dis; 1998 Sep; 7(5):561-8. PubMed ID: 9793857
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
48. [Evaluation of aortic valve replacement with bioprosthesis (author's transl)].
Maeta H; Itoh T; Hiratsuka H; Tanaka T; Matsumoto M
Kokyu To Junkan; 1977 Jul; 25(7):613-20. PubMed ID: 562526
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
49. In vitro durability of Hancock Model 242 porcine heart valve.
Clark RE; Swanson WM
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1979 Aug; 78(2):277-80. PubMed ID: 572454
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
50. From valvular xenograft to valvular bioprosthesis (1965-1977).
Carpentier A
Med Instrum; 1977; 11(2):98-101. PubMed ID: 404516
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
51. Pulsatile flow past aortic valve bioprostheses in a model human aorta.
Chandran KB; Cabell GN; Khalighi B; Chen CJ
J Biomech; 1984; 17(8):609-19. PubMed ID: 6490673
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
52. In vitro comparison between the hydrodynamic characteristics of the Hancock 250 (modified orifice) xenografts and the Björk-Shiley aortic valve prostheses.
Wright JT
Trans Am Soc Artif Intern Organs; 1977; 23():89-94. PubMed ID: 910416
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
53. [Method of preparation of artificial valve-holding prostheses].
Chekanov VS; Krasikov LI
Grudn Khir; 1978; (5):65-9. PubMed ID: 151659
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
54. The hydrodynamic function and leaflet dynamics of aortic and pulmonary roots and valves: an in vitro study.
Weerasena N; Lockie KJ; Butterfield M; Fisher J; Kearney JN; Davies GA
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg; 1992; 6(7):350-6. PubMed ID: 1497926
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
55. [Comparative hydrodynamic study of artificial heart valves in pulsating flow].
Uglov FG; Zubtsovskiĭ VN; Orlovskiĭ PI; Bushmarin ON; Smirnov GV
Vestn Khir Im I I Grek; 1978 Feb; 120(2):3-13. PubMed ID: 644777
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
56. Open aortic bioprosthesis at zero pressure. A new concept in glutaraldehyde fixation of tissue valve.
Imamura E; Wada J
J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino); 1980; 21(5):617-24. PubMed ID: 7451570
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
57. [The cardiac valve bioprosthesis of homologous dura mater. Alternative to porcine xenograft].
Bortolotti U; Bellotto F; Russo R; Marino P; De Mozzi P; Pignatelli MG; Casarotto D
G Ital Cardiol; 1979; 9(1):72-8. PubMed ID: 575509
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
58. Atypical mycobacteria and the xenograft valve.
Tyras DH; Kaiser GC; Barner HB; Laskowski LF; Marr JJ
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1978 Mar; 75(3):331-7. PubMed ID: 564994
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
59. Valvular xenograft and valvular xenobioprosthesis: past, present, future.
Carpentier A
Nihon Kyobu Geka Gakkai Zasshi; 1979 Apr; 27(4):397-404. PubMed ID: 469294
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
60. Substitute cardiac valves. Advantages and disadvantages of four commonly used ones.
Roberts WC
Adv Cardiol; 1978; (22):252-70. PubMed ID: 619521
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
