Advertisement

General Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

, Volume 67, Issue 1, pp 77–81 | Cite as

PRO-CON debate: valve sparing aortic root surgery. PRO: reimplantation

  • Ruggero De Paulis
SPECIAL EDITION Controversies in Surgery for Thoracic Aorta
  • 139 Downloads

Abstract

The remodeling and the reimplantation procedures were described more than 25 years ago with the aim of sparing, otherwise normal aortic valve in the presence of a root aneurysm. Because of its ability to reconstruct the sinuses of Valsalva, the remodeling procedure was considered to be more physiological than the reimplantation. However, because the remodeling lacked annular stabilization, the long-term stability of the procedure was questioned. However, through the years, both procedures have been significantly improved, so that is now possible to perform a reimplantation procedure with neo-sinuses reconstruction or a remodeling procedure with annular stabilization. In this way, both procedures can now guarantee an anatomical root reconstruction and an increased long-term durability. Today preference for a reimplantation procedure is based on the perception of a better reproducibility of the surgical procedure, an increased procedural safety due to the characteristic hemostatic feature of this surgical approach, and to a much larger amount of data present in the literature on long-term results.

Keywords

Valve sparing Aortic root Aortic valve Great vessels 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author might have a potential conflict of interest: The author receives royalties from Vascutek Terumo in conjunction with the design of the Valsalva graft described in this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Yacoub MH, Fagan A, Stassano P, Radley-Smith R. Results of valve conserving operations for aortic regurgitation (abstract). Circulation. 1983;68:311–2.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sarsam MA, Yacoub M. Remodeling of the aortic valve annulus. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1993;105:435–8.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    David TE, Feindel CM. An aortic valve–sparing operation for patients with aortic incompetence and aneurysm of the ascending aorta. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1992;103:617–21 (discussion 622).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yacoub MH, Gehle P, Chandrasekaran V, Birks EJ, Child A, Radley-Smith R. Late results of a valve-preserving operation in patients with aneurysms of the ascending aorta and root. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1998;5:1080–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    David TE, David TE, Feindel CM, Bos J. Repair of the aortic valve in patients with aortic insufficiency and aortic root aneurysm. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1995;109:345–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zehr KJ. Valve-preserving aortic root reconstruction. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2001;121:1220–21.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ikonomidis JS, Miller DC. Stentless bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement after valve-sparing aortic root replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002;124(4):848–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kunzelman KS, Grande KJ, David TE, Cochran RP, Verrier ED. Aortic root and valve relationships: impact on surgical repair. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1994;107:162–70.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grande-Allen KJ, Cochran RP, Reinhall PG, Kunzelman KS. Re-creation of sinuses is important for sparing the aortic valve: a finite element study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;119:753–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hopkins RA. Aortic valve leaflet sparing and salvage surgery: evolution of techniques for aortic root reconstruction. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2003;24(6):886–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lansac E, Di Centa I, Raoux F, Bulman-Fleming N, Ranga A, Abed A, et al. An expansible aortic ring for a physiological approach to conservative aortic valve surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009;138:718 – 24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schneider U, Aicher D, Miura Y, Schäfers HJ. Suture annuloplasty in aortic valve repair. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;101(2):783–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moritz A, Risteski P, Dogan S, Macit H, Akbulut B, Zierer A. Aybek T. Six stitches to create a neosinus in David-type aortic root resuspension. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007;133(2):560–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    David TE. How I do aortic valve sparing operations to treat aortic root aneurysm. J Cardiac Surg. 2011;26:92–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Miller DC. Rationale and results of the Stanford modification of the David V re- implantation technique for valve-sparing aortic root replacement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;149:112–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    De Paulis R, De Matteis GM, Nardi P, Scaffa R, Colella D, Chiariello L. A new aortic Dacron conduit for surgical treatment of aortic root pathology. Ital Heart J. 2000;1:457–63.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    De Paulis R, De Matteis GM, Nardi P, Scaffa R, Colella DF, Bassano C, et al. One-year appraisal of a new aortic root conduit with sinuses of Valsalva. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002;123:33–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Aicher D, Langer F, Lausberg H, Bierbach B, Sch€afers HJ. Aortic root remodeling: ten-year experience with 274 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007;134:909–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lansac E, Di Centa I, Sleilaty G, Lejeune S, Berrebi A, Zacek P, Debauchez M. Remodeling root repair with an external aortic ring annuloplasty. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017;153(5):1033–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    David TE, David CM, Feindel CM, Manlhiot C. Reimplantation of the aortic valve at 20 years. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017;153:232–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    De Paulis R, Chirichilli I, Scaffa R, Weltert L, Maselli D, Salica A, Guerrieri Wolf L, Bellisario A, Chiariello L. Long-term results of the valve reimplantation technique using a graft with sinuses. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;151(1):112–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Association for Thoracic Surgery 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cardiac SurgeryEuropean HospitalRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations