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: Ross operation in the adult: long-term outcomes after root replacement and inclusion techniques.
    Author: de Kerchove L, Rubay J, Pasquet A, Poncelet A, Ovaert C, Pirotte M, Buche M, D'Hoore W, Noirhomme P, El Khoury G.
    Journal: Ann Thorac Surg; 2009 Jan; 87(1):95-102. PubMed ID: 19101277.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Dilatation of the pulmonary autograft is a major concern after root replacement for the Ross operation. The inclusion technique would avoid this drawback, but few data are available on the long-term results of this technique. We retrospectively analyze long-term results of both techniques. METHODS: Of 218 patients undergoing the Ross operation between 1991 and 2006, 148 (68%) had root replacement and 70 (32%) underwent the inclusion technique. The mean age of the patients was 40 +/- 10 years (range, 16 to 64). Mean follow-up was 94 +/- 44 months (range, 13 to 196). Echocardiographic controls were available in 197 patients. Proximal aorta dilatation was defined as diameter > 40 mm. RESULTS: In the root and inclusion groups, 10-year overall survival was 94% +/- 4% and 97% +/- 4%, respectively. Freedom from autograft reoperation was 81% +/- 10% and 84% +/- 13%, respectively. Main cause of reoperation was autograft dilatation in the root group (13 of 16) and valve prolapse in the inclusion group (5 of 6). Freedom from proximal aorta dilatation was 57% +/- 12% and 80% +/- 15%, respectively. In the root group, dilatations (n = 48) affected systematically the autograft sinuses or sinotubular junction, whereas in the inclusion group, dilatations (n = 10) affected principally the ascending aorta (8 of 10). Freedom from severe autograft regurgitation was 86% +/- 9% and 83% +/- 13%, respectively. Root technique, follow-up length, and preoperative aortic valve regurgitation were predictors of proximal aorta dilatation. CONCLUSIONS: In the long term, both techniques showed excellent survival and similar rates of autograft failure. For root replacement, autograft dilatation was the main cause of failure. For the inclusion technique, the autograft, but not the ascending aorta, was protected against dilatation and autograft valve prolapse was the main cause of failure.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]