Stenosis of the Tricuspid Valve
The tricuspid or right atrioventricular valve is significantly larger than the mitral, is of more delicate construction and is divided into three major leaflets rather than two. These two valves are otherwise similar in structure and function. The chief differences are related to the considerable disparity between the pressures built up within the ventricular chambers which they respectively guard. As viewed from its atrial aspect, the tricuspid valve appears as an equilateral triangle standing upon one angle dorsally.
KeywordsMitral Valve Papillary Muscle Tricuspid Valve Mitral Stenosis Mitral Valve Surgery
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Bailey, C. P.: Surgery of the Heart, 1. edit.: Lea and Febiger 1955.Google Scholar
- Bailey, C. P., and H. E. Bolton: Criteria for and Results of Surgery for Mitral stenosis. N. Y. State Med. 56, 649 (1956).Google Scholar
- Bailey, C. P., and H. E. Bolton and D. P. Morse: The Eight Approach to Mitral Stenosis. Surg. Clin. N. Amer. 36, 931(1956).Google Scholar
- Bailey, C. P., and D. P. Morse and T. HIROSE: A Further Comparison of the Right and Left Thoracic Approaches for the Treatment of Mitral Stenosis: The first 422 Operations from the Right Compared with the First 1,000 Procedures from the Left. (To be published.)Google Scholar
- Bakos, A. C. P.: The Question of the Function of the Right Ventricular Myocardium. An Experimental Study. Circulation (New York) 1, 724 (1950).Google Scholar
- Jamison, W. L., W. Gemeinhardt, A. Johangir and C. P. Bailey: Artificial Maintenance of the Systemic Circulation without Participation of the Right Ventricle. Circ. Res. 2, No 4 (1954).Google Scholar
- Likoff, W., A. Reale, H. Goldberg and C. Denton: Rheumatic Tricuspid Stenosis. A Clinical and Physiological Study with a Suggested Method of Diagnosis. Amer. J. Med. 21, 47 (1946).Google Scholar
- Magarey, F. R. Pathogenesis of Mitral Stenosis. Brit. Med. J. 1951, 856.Google Scholar
- Rodbard, S., and D. Wagner: By-passing the Right Ventricle. Proc. Soc. Exper. Biol. a. Med. 71, 69 (1949).Google Scholar