The differences in aortic root geometry associated with various valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) techniques have not fully been understood. We evaluated the root configuration of current VSRR techniques by developing in vitro test apparatus. Six fresh porcine hearts were used for each model. The aortic root remodeling control group involved replacement of the ascending aorta with diameter reduction of sino-tubular junction (STJ) (C1). The aortic valve reimplantation control group involved replacement of the ascending aorta alone (C2). VSRR included remodeling without (RM) or with annuloplasty (RM + A) and reimplantation with a tube (RI) or a handmade neo-Valsalva graft (RI + V). The root geometry of each model in response to closing hydraulic pressures of 80 and 120 mmHg was investigated using echocardiography. Among the VSRR models, RM yielded the largest aorto-ventricular junction (AVJ), which was similar to those in non-VSRR models [mean AVJ diameter (mm) at 80 mmHg; RM = 25.1 ± 1.5, RM + A = 20.9 ± 0.7, RI = 20.7 ± 0.9, RI + V = 20.8 ± 0.4]. RI + V yielded the largest Valsalva size and largest ratio of Valsalva/AVJ, which was similar to the control group [mean Valsalva diameter (mm) at 80 mmHg; RM = 28.4 ± 1.4, RM + A = 25.8 ± 1.3, RI = 23.6 ± 1.0, RI + V = 30.5 ± 0.8, ratio of Valsalva/AVJ at 80 mmHg; RM = 1.14 ± 0.06, RM + A = 1.24 ± 0.06, RI = 1.15 ± 0.06, RI + V = 1.47 ± 0.05]. The STJ diameter at 80 mmHg was numerically smaller with RM + A (22.4 ± 1.2 mm) than with RM (24.8 ± 2.3 mm, p = 0.11). There were no significant differences in AVJ, Valsalva, or STJ distensibility or ellipticity between procedures. Current modifications, including annuloplasty for remodeling or reimplantation in the setting of neo-Valsalva graft, yield near-physiological root geometries.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Yacoub MH, Fagan A, Stassano P, Radley-Smith R. Results of valve conserving operations for aortic regurgitation. Circulation. 1983;68:311–2.
Sarsam MA, Yacoub M. Remodeling of the aortic valve anulus. J ThoracCardiovascSurg. 1993;105:435–8.
David TE, Feindel CM. An aortic valve-sparing operation for patients with aortic incompetence and aneurysm of the ascending aorta. J ThoracCardiovascSurg. 1992;103:617–21.
Rahnavardi M, Yan TD, Bannon PG, Wilson MK. Aortic valve-sparing operations in aortic root aneurysms: remodeling or reimplantation? Interact CardiovascThoracSurg. 2011;13:189–97.
Kunihara T. Valve-sparing aortic root surgery. CON: remodeling. Gen ThoracCardiovascSurg. 2019;67(1):82–92.
Arabkhani B, Mookhoek A, Di Centa I, Lansac E, Bekkers JA, De Lind VanWijngaarden R, et al. Reported outcome after valve-sparing aortic root replacement for aortic root aneurysm: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;100:1126–31.
Leyh RG, Schmidtke C, Sievers HH, Yacoub MH. Opening and closing characteristics of the aortic valve after different types of valve-preserving surgery. Circulation. 1999;100:2153–60.
Graeter TP, Fries R, Aicher D, Reul H, Schmitz C, Schäfers HJ. In-vitro comparison of aortic valve hemodynamics among aortic root remodeling and aortic valve reimplantation. J Heart Valve Dis. 2006;15:329–35.
De Paulis R, Chirichilli I, Scaffa R, Weltert L, Maselli D, Salica A, Chiariello L, et al. Long-term results of the valve reimplantation technique using a graft with sinuses. J ThoracCardiovasc Surg. 2016;151(1):112–9.
de Kerchove L, Mastrobuoni S, Boodhwani M, Astarci P, Rubay J, Poncelet A, et al. The role of annular dimension and annuloplasty in tricuspid aortic valve repair. Eur J CardiothoracSurg. 2016;49:428–37.
Hanke T, Charitos EI, Stierle U, Robinson D, Gorski A, Sievers HH, et al. Factors associated with the development of aortic valve regurgitation over time after two different techniques of valve-sparing aortic root surgery. J ThoracCardiovascSurg. 2009;137:314–9.
Schäfers HJ, Raddatz A, Schmied W, Takahashi H, Miura Y, Kunihara T, et al. Reexaminingremodeling. J ThoracCardiovascSurg. 2015;149:S30–6.
Schneider U, Aicher D, Miura Y, Schäfers HJ. Suture annuloplasty in aortic valve repair. Ann ThoracSurg. 2016;101:783–5.
Monti L, Mauri G, Balzarini L, Tarelli G, Brambilla G, Vitali E, et al. Compliance of the valsalva graft’s pseudosinuses at midterm follow-up with cardiovascular magnetic resonance. Ann ThoracSurg. 2011;91:92–6.
Laurent S, Cockcroft J, Van Bortel L, Boutouyrie P, Giannattasio C, Hayoz D, et al. European network for non-invasive investigation of large arteries. Expert consensus document on arterial stiffness: methodological issues and clinical applications. Eur Heart J. 2006;27:2588–605.
Matsumori M, Tanaka H, Kawanishi Y, Onishi T, Nakagiri K, Yamashita T, et al. Comparison of distensibility of the aortic root and cusp motion after aortic root replacement with two reimplantation techniques: valsalva graft versus tube graft. Interact CardiovascThoracSurg. 2007;6:177–81.
Zhu D, Zhao Q. Dynamic normal aortic root diameters: implications for aortic root reconstruction. Ann ThoracSurg. 2011;91:485–9.
Kazui T, Izumoto H, Yoshioka K, Kawazoe K. Dynamic morphologic changes in the normal aortic annulus during systole and diastole. J H eart Valve Dis. 2006;15:617–21.
Weltert L, De Paulis R, Scaffa R, Maselli D, Bellisario A, D’Alessandro S. Recreation of a sinuslike graft expansion in Bentall procedure reduces stress at the coronary button anastomoses: a finite element study. J ThoracCardiovascSurg. 2009;137:1082–7.
Lansac E, Di Centa I, Sleilaty G, Lejeune S, Berrebi A, Zacek P, et al. Remodeling root repair with an external aortic ring annuloplasty. J ThoracCardiovascSurg. 2017;153:1033–42.
This study was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (No.15K10227) from Japan Society for the promotion of science (JSPS) and Subsidy Program for Development of International Standards for Evaluation of Innovative Medical Devices and Regenerative Medicine Products, from Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, Japan.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
About this article
Cite this article
Sasaki, K., Kunihara, T., Kasegawa, H. et al. Aortic root geometry following valve-sparing root replacement with reimplantation or remodeling: experimental investigation under static continuous pressure. J Artif Organs (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10047-020-01242-4
- Aortic root geometry
- Valve-sparing root replacement
- Aortic root remodeling
- Aortic valve reimplantation
- In vitro investigation