Journal Home
Search for

Volume 139, Issue 6, Pages 1420-1423 (June 2010)


View previous. 12 of 94 View next.

Modified Ross operation with reinforcement of the pulmonary autograft: Six-year results

Francis Juthier, MD, PhDac, Carlo Banfi, MD, PhD, FCCPac, André Vincentelli, MD, PhDacCorresponding Author Informationemail address, Pierre-Vladimir Ennezat, MD, PhDb, Thierry Le Tourneau, MD, PhDc, Claire Pinçon, PhDd, Alain Prat, MDac

Received 28 October 2009; received in revised form 2 January 2010; accepted 22 January 2010. published online 12 April 2010.

Objective

The Ross procedure is widely used for aortic valve disease in patients who are still growing and young adults with active lifestyles or the desire for pregnancy. The need for autograft reoperation remains the principal limitation of the procedure. Autograft inclusion in a polyester tube prosthesis has been proposed with good postoperative results, but the durability of these technical modifications has not been assessed. We report the midterm results of pulmonary autograft reinforcement with a Valsalva Gelweave Dacron tube (Terumo Cardiovascular Systems Inc, Ann Arbor, Mich).

Methods

Since 1992, we have performed 322 Ross operations; 12 patients underwent a modified Ross procedure with the autograft included in a Valsalva Gelweave Dacron tube. The mean age of these patients was 29.7 ± 10.8 years (range, 15.3–46.5 years). The mean aortic crossclamp time was 126 ± 11 minutes (range, 110–142 minutes). The mean follow-up was 4 ± 1.4 years (range 1.7–5.8 years).

Results

No perioperative deaths were observed, and all patients are alive and doing well. No significant autograft regurgitation was recorded during follow-up. The mean diameters of the autograft annulus and the neosinus of Valsalva were 23.3 ± 2.6 mm and 32.6 ± 3.3 mm, respectively, at discharge, and 24.0 ± 1.9 mm and 33.6 ± 3.3 mm, respectively, at the last control (P = .32 and P = .08, respectively).

Conclusion

These results support that this technical modification of the Ross operation might be proposed for patients at risk of autograft dilatation when an inclusion technique is not feasible.

CTSNet classification20, 20.2, 35, 35.2

a Centre Hospitalier Régional et Universitaire de Lille, Pôle de Chirugie Cardio-vasculaire, Lille, France

b Centre Hospitalier Régional et Universitaire de Lille, Pôle de Cardiologie et Maladies vasculaires, Lille, France

c Univ Lille Nord de France, UDSL, IFR 114, EA 2693, Faculté de Médecine, Lille, France

d Univ Lille Nord de France, UDSL, EA2694, Department of Biostatistics, Lille, France

Corresponding Author InformationAddress for reprints: André Vincentelli, MD, PhD, Pôle de Chirurgie Cardio-vasculaire, bvd Pr Leclercq, 59037 Lille.

 Disclosures: None.

PII: S0022-5223(10)00108-X

doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2010.01.032


View previous. 12 of 94 View next.