Publication details
Reply to Chen et al.
| Authors | |
|---|---|
| Year of publication | 2022 |
| Type | Article in Periodical |
| Magazine / Source | EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| Web | https://academic.oup.com/ejcts/article/62/4/ezac260/6572341?login=true |
| Doi | http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezac260 |
| Keywords | Ross operation; Pulmonary conduit; Reoperation; Reintervention |
| Description | We read the letter to the editor written by Chen et al. regarding our published study with great interest. We agree that the reintervention rate on both valves is of utmost importance. Therefore, we described the need for reintervention separately as follows: 9 patients (3.1%) in the Ross group had to undergo a reoperation due to autograft failure and 4 patients (1.4%) underwent a reoperation of the homograft. On the other hand, 16 patients (5.5%) underwent reoperation in the mechanical aortic valve replacement (mAVR) group. We conclude that there is no significant difference in the risk of reoperation between the Ross operation (RO) and mAVR (P?=?0.54) in the mid-term postoperatively. However, only a limited number of patients in our study with a follow-up >10?years after the RO. Therefore, our ability to objectively analyse this long-term complication was limited. |