Advertisement

The Ross Operation

  • John R. PepperEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The search for an ideal biological heart valve substitute has been going on for half a century. In 1960, Lower and Shumway described the feasibility of replacing the aortic valve in dogs with a native pulmonary valve (Lower et al. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 39:680–7, 1960). Further experimental work in Oxford was carried out by Gunning and Duran (Oury et al. Ann Thorac Surg 66:S162–5, 1998). In London, Ross had already pioneered the homograft clinically in 1962, but it had become clear that a valve taken from a deceased person would have a limited durability. To use the pulmonary valve, which has the same embryological origin as the aortic valve and is a living autologous valve substitute, was a groundbreaking idea.

Keywords

Aortic valve replacement Pulmonary autograft Ross procedure Root geometry 

References

  1. 1.
    Lower RR, Stoffer RC, Shumway NE. Autotransplantation of the pulmonary valve into the aorta. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1960;39:680–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Oury JH, Hiro SP, Maxwell JM, Lamberti JJ, Duran CM. The Ross procedure: current registry results. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;66:S162–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ross DN. Replacement of aortic and mitral valves with a pulmonary autograft. Lancet. 1967;2:956–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ross DN. Homograft replacement of the aortic valve. Lancet. 1962;2:487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dagun P, Green GR, Nistal FJ. Deformational dynamics of the aortic root: modes and physiological determinant. Circulation. 1999;100:1154–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    El-Hamamsy I, Balachandran K, Yacoub MH. Endothelium-dependent regulation of the mechanical properties of the aortic valve cusps. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;53:1448–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stelzer P, Jones DJ, Elkins RC. Aortic root replacement with pulmonary autograft. Circulation. 1989;80:lll209–13.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yacoub M, Nerem R. Introduction. Bioengineering the heart. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2007;362:1253–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Charitos EI, Hanke T, Stierle U, Robinson DR, Bogers AJ, Hemmer W, et al.; German-Dutch Ross Registry.Autograft reinforcement to preserve autograft function after the Ross procedure: a report from the German-Dutch Registry. Circulation. 2009;120:S146–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brown JW, Ruzmetov M, Shahriari A, Rodefield MD, Mahomed Y, Turrentine MW. Mid-term results of Ross aortic valve replacement: a single institution experience. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;88:601–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    David TE, Omran A, Ivanov J, Armstrong S, deSa MP, Sonnenberg B, Webb G. Dilatation of the pulmonary autograft after the Ross procedure. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;119:210–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kouchoukos NT, Masetti P, Nickerson NJ, Castner CF, Stannon WD, Devila-Romain VG. The Ross procedure: long-term clinical and echocardiographic follow-up. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;78:773–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sievers HH, Hanke T, Stierle U, Bechtel MF, Graf B, Robinson DR, Ross DN. A critical re-appraisal of the Ross operation: renaissance of the sub-coronary implantation technique? Circulation. 2006;114:S504–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sievers HH, Stierle U, Charitos EI, Hanke T, Gorski A, Misfeld M, Bechtel M. Fourteen years’ experience with 501 sub-coronary Ross procedures: surgical details and results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;140:816–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Takkenberg JJ, Klieverik LMA, Schoot PH, van Suylen PJ, van Herwerden LA, Zondervan PE, Roos-Hesselink JW, Eijkemanns MJC, Yacoub MH, Bogers AJJC. The Ross procedure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circulation. 2009;119:222–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    David TE. Ross procedure at the crossroads. Circulation. 2009;119:207–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Klieverik LM, Takkenberg JJ, Bekkers JA, Roos-Hesselink JW, Witsenburg M, Bogers AJ. The Ross operation: a Trojan horse? Eur Heart J. 2007;28:1993–2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Elkins RC, Thompson DM, Lane MM, Elkins CC, Peyton MD. Ross operation: 16 year experience. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008;136:623–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gerestein CG, Takkenberg JJ, Oei FB, Cromme-Dijkhuis AH, Spitaels SE, van Herwerden LA, Steyerberg EW, Bogers AJ. Right ventricular outflow tract reconstruction with an allograft conduit. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001;71:911–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hogan PG, O’Brien MF. Improving the allograft valve: dose the immune response matter? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;126:1251–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rabkin-Aikawa E, Aikawa M, Farber M, Kraz JR, Garcia-Cardena CG, Kouchoukos NT. Clinical pulmonary autograft valves: pathologic evidence of adaptive modelling in the aortic site. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2004;128:552–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schoof PH, Takkenberg JJ, van Suylen RJ, Zondervan PE, Hazekamp MG, Dion RA. Degeneration of the pulmonary autograft: an explant study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006;132:1426–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grotenhuis HB, Westenberg JJ, Doornbos J, Kroft IJ, Schoof PH, Hazekamp MG, Vliegen HW, Ottenkamp J, de Roos A. Aortic root dysfunctioning and its effect on left ventricular function in Ross procedure patients assessed with magnetic resonance imaging. Am Heart J. 2006;152:971–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Treasure T, Hasan A, Yacoub M. Is there a risk in avoiding risk for younger patients with aortic valve disease? Br Med J. 2011;342:d2466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Royston G. Commentary: trials versus models in appraising screening programmes. Br Med J. 1999;318:360–1.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Takkenberg JJ, Puvimanasinghe JP, Grunkemeier GL. Simulation models to predict outcome after aortic valve replacement. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003;75:1372–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stoica S, Goldsmith K, Demiris N, Punjabi P, Berg G, Sharples L. Microsimulation and clinical outcomes analysis support a lower age threshold for the use of biological valves. Heart. 2010;96:1730–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cardiac SurgeryRoyal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK

Personalised recommendations