4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Ross operation: 16-year experience

Journal

JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY
Volume 136, Issue 3, Pages 623-U54

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2008.02.080

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: We performed a review of a consecutive series of 487 patients undergoing the Ross operation to identify surgical techniques and clinical parameters that affect outcome. Methods: We performed a prospective review of consecutive patients from August 1986 through June 2002 and follow-up through August 2004. Patient age was 2 days to 62 years (median, 24 years), and 197 patients were less than 18 years of age. The Ross operation was performed as a scalloped subcoronary implant in 26 patients, an inclusion cylinder in 54 patients, root replacement in 392 patients, and root Konno procedure in 15 patients. Clinical follow-up in 96% and echocardiographic evaluation in 77% were performed within 2 years of closure. Results: Actuarial survival was 82% +/- 6% at 16 years, and hospital mortality was 3.9%. Freedom from autograft failure (autograft reoperation and valve-related death) was 74% +/- 5%. Male sex and primary diagnosis of aortic insufficiency (no prior aortic stenosis) were significantly associated with autograft failure by means of multivariate analysis. Freedom from autograft valve replacement was 80% +/- 5%. Freedom from endocarditis was 95% +/- 2%. One late thromboembolic episode occurred. Freedom from allograft reoperation or reintervention was 82% +/- 4%. Freedom from all valve-related events was 63% +/- 6%. In children survival was 84% +/- 8%, and freedom from autograft valve failure was 83% +/- 6%. Conclusions: The Ross operation provides excellent survival in adults and children willing to accept a risk of reoperation. Male sex and a primary diagnosis of aortic insufficiency had a negative effect on late results.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available