PubMed · 3555806
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
L I Bonchek. 1987. Basis for selecting a valve prosthesis.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3555806/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) is an uncommon procedure. The use of biological vs mechanical prostheses in TVR has pros and cons. Therefore, we debate the choice between the different types of valves by means of a meta-analysis of studies of the last decade. METHODS: The heading "tricuspid valve replacement and (bio* or mec*)" was used to retrieve studies from Medline, Current Contents, and Embase. Eight out of 11 studies met the preset strict criteria: intra-institutional comparison of results of biological or mechanical TVR. Survival of hospital-discharged patients was recalculated to reduce the effect of unbalanced perioperative risk factors on overall survival. Hazard ratio was obtained from actuarial survival graphics comparison and at-risk groups, according to the method described by Parmar. If missing, the number of patients at risk was approximated assuming constant and noninformative censoring. Hazard pooling was done according to study heterogeneity. Bioprostheses were assumed as the gold standard and mechanical prostheses assumed as the challenging device. Therefore, a hazard more than 1 pointed to a higher risk of mechanical prostheses. Our 1998 study was updated for this analysis. RESULTS: In this study, 1,160 prostheses and 6,046 follow-up years were analyzed. The pooled survival hazard ratio of mechanical prostheses versus bioprostheses was 1.07 (0.84 to 1.35, p = 0.60). The pooled freedom from reoperation hazard ratio was 1.24 (0.67 to 2.31, p = 0.67). Pooled survival differences were trivial, favoring mechanical prostheses at 1 (-0.04%) and 15 years (-1.1%) and favoring bioprostheses (+1.8%) at 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: There is not a gold standard in tricuspid prostheses replacement. Prosthetic choice is left to the surgeon's clinical judgment, taking into consideration each patient's characteristics and needs.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Advances in minimally invasive vein surgery (MIVS) techniques made during the last decade have decreased operative morbidity, the number and size of incisions, operative time and recovery time. The following MIVS techniques will be discussed: 1. Transilluminated Powered Phlebectomy (TIPP) TriVex. 2. Radiofrequency Ablation Greater Saphenous Vein (RFGSV) Closure. 3.Laser Ablation Greater Saphenous Vein (EVLT). 4. Subfascial Endoscopic Perforator Surgery (SEPS). 5. Percutaneous Vein Valve Bioprosthesis (PVVB) The techniques used in MIVS allow surgeons to manage venous pathophysiology associated with all three venous systems of the lower extremities. The results are comparable to those obtained with open procedures.