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

Journal Abstract Search

474 related items for PubMed ID: 3600005

  • 1. Comparative analysis of mechanical and bioprosthetic valves after aortic valve replacement.
    Borkon AM, Soule LM, Baughman KL, Aoun H, Baumgartner WA, Gardner TJ, Watkins L, Gott VL, Reitz BA.
    J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1987 Jul; 94(1):20-33. PubMed ID: 3600005
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 2. Aortic valve replacement with the Hancock standard, Björk-Shiley, and Lillehei-Kaster prostheses. A comparison based on follow-up from 1 to 15 years.
    Milano AD, Bortolotti U, Mazzucco A, Guerra F, Magni A, Gallucci V.
    J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1989 Jul; 98(1):37-47. PubMed ID: 2739424
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 3. Long-term comparative analysis of the Björk-Shiley and Hancock valves implanted in 1975.
    Martinell J, Fraile J, Artiz V, Moreno J, Rábago G.
    J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1985 Nov; 90(5):741-9. PubMed ID: 4058046
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 4.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 5.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 6.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 7. Fourteen years' experience with the Björk-Shiley tilting disc prosthesis.
    Sethia B, Turner MA, Lewis S, Rodger RA, Bain WH.
    J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1986 Mar; 91(3):350-61. PubMed ID: 3951241
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 8.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 9.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 10.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 11. Comparative clinical results with Omniscience (STM1), Medtronic-Hall, and Björk-Shiley convexo-concave (70 degrees) prostheses in mitral valve replacement.
    Cortina JM, Martinell J, Artiz V, Fraile J, Rábago G.
    J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1986 Feb; 91(2):174-83. PubMed ID: 3945084
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 12.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 13. Biological versus mechanical valves. Analysis of 1,116 valves inserted in 1,012 adult patients with a 4,818 patient-year and a 5,327 valve-year follow-up.
    Hammond GL, Geha AS, Kopf GS, Hashim SW.
    J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1987 Feb; 93(2):182-98. PubMed ID: 3807394
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 14.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 15. Comparative evaluation of aortic valve replacement with Starr, Björk, and porcine valve prostheses.
    Perier P, Bessou JP, Swanson JS, Bensasson D, Chachques JC, Chauvaud S, Deloche A, Fabiani JN, Blondeau P, d'Allaines C.
    Circulation; 1985 Sep; 72(3 Pt 2):II140-5. PubMed ID: 4028358
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 16.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 17. An eight-year experience with porcine bioprosthetic cardiac valves.
    Hartz RS, Fisher EB, Finkelmeier B, DeBoer A, Sanders JH, Moran JM, Michaelis LL.
    J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg; 1986 Jun; 91(6):910-7. PubMed ID: 3713240
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 18.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 19.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

  • 20.
    ; . PubMed ID:
    [No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]

    Page: [Next] [New Search]
    of 24.