These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: In vitro hydrodynamics, cusp-bending deformation, and root distensibility for different types of aortic valve-sparing operations: remodeling, sinus prosthesis, and reimplantation.
    Author: Erasmi A, Sievers HH, Scharfschwerdt M, Eckel T, Misfeld M.
    Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 2005 Oct; 130(4):1044-9. PubMed ID: 16214518.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: Preserving aortic valve cusps during operations for aortic root pathology theoretically offers several advantages over alternative prosthetic valve-bearing conduits. Functional properties of different valve-sparing techniques under defined conditions are not well studied. METHODS: Fresh porcine aortic roots were investigated in a pulsatile flow simulator, either native root or after different types of valve-sparing procedures (remodeling, sinus prosthesis, and reimplantation). Functional parameters, such as transvalvular pressure gradient, closing volume, cusp-bending deformation, and distensibility at different levels of the root were analyzed. RESULTS: The mean pressure gradient was highest in reimplantation techniques (8.4 +/- 1.8 mm Hg) compared with sinus prostheses (7.2 +/- 0.9 mm Hg, P = .01) and remodeling techniques (6.8 +/- 1.0 mm Hg, P = .002), mirror imaging the closing volume (reimplantation, 1.5 +/- 0.4 mL; sinus prostheses, 2.3 +/- 0.7 mL [P < .001]; remodeling, 3.4 +/- 1.1 mL [P < .001]). Bending deformation indices increased significantly from remodeling (0.45 +/- 0.05) and sinus prostheses (0.58 +/- 0.06) to reimplantation techniques (0.73 +/- 0.09). Dynamic changes in area of all techniques were decreased at the sinotubular junction and the commissural and sinus levels when compared with those seen in native roots but increased at the annular level for techniques with unfixed annulus (remodeling and modified sinus prosthesis). CONCLUSIONS: In vitro the various aortic valve-sparing operations differed characteristically in their ability to spare valve function, none of them completely meeting native valve behavior. The remodeling techniques exhibited valve dynamics closest to those of the native aortic root. The more the aortic valve is fixed with noncompliant prosthetic material, the more the native root dynamics are impaired.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]